Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
After Standing Order 223, insert new Standing Order,—
Where it is sought by a proposed Instruction to authorise or require a Committee on a Private Bill to make an Amendment in the Bill, Mr. Speaker, if he is of the opinion that the Amendment is such that, if proposed by the promoters, a petition for additional provision would have been required, shall decline to propose the question on the Instruction to the House."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Colonel GRETTON: May I inquire the exact meaning of this Motion, which is rather obscure? It is not clear to me or to Members of the House generally.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Captain Bourne): Under the Standing Orders of this House certain notices have to be given by the promoters of Private Bills, and these Bills cannot proceed unless the Standing Orders have been complied with. The object of this Standing Order is to make it perfectly clear to anybody who may be affected by the Bill, that they will have an opportunity of opposing and stating their case before a Committee of this House. If this House moved an Instruction—possibly a mandatory Instruction—to a Private Bill, it might altogether prevent people whose interests and rights would be affected from getting

any effective opportunity of putting their views before the Committee on the Bill. Our Private Bill Procedure has always proceeded on the lines that both parties shall, if they so desire, be heard by the Committee and their case decided by the Committee on the Bill. I think that an Instruction of the nature which is covered by the proposed Standing Order is obviously in conformity with the spirit of our Standing Orders and our general Procedure, and I hope that the House will agree to this Motion.

Colonel GRETTON: Am I rightly to understand that the object of the new Standing Order is to give greater opportunity of thoroughly discussing and examining all questions arising out of a Bill?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: Not quite. The object is to make quite certain that, if it is desired to put in an additional provision in any Private Bill which has been promoted, it should be done by the promoters, and in that case they are bound to give notice to every interested party. It is one of the conditions always insisted upon by the Standing Orders Committee of this House that due notice shall be given to every person, corporation or anybody else whose interests might be affected. The object is to prevent conditions being put into a Private Bill without notice to every interested party.

Mr. LEACH: If this Motion is designed to afford protection to propertied people, should it not also be designed to give equal protection to property-less people?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I would point out to the hon. Member that the protection which is given by the Standing Orders applies to everybody, local authorities and all sorts of people. It is not solely for property owners. The sole object of the Standing Orders is that anybody, any corporation or anybody else in the country, shall have the right of stating their objection. No one is to have the right to prevent them from stating their case.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House the reason for introducing this Motion? Has anybody hitherto been de barred under the Private Bill procedure from urging any objections to a Bill? I


so, that might have been done away with many years ago. I think that a further explanation to the House is necessary.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I think that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) is under a misapprehension. There have been occasions in this House when an Instruction to the Private Bill Committee has been moved by hon. Members to whom the Standing Orders do not apply, and which, if carried, would have had the effect of compelling the Committee to insert a provision which the promoters of the Bill could not have done. On one or two occasions it has been ruled out of order by the Chair, but there is some little doubt as to the exact scope of the Private Bill Standing Orders on this matter. The object of this new Standing Order is to make it perfectly clear so that no one can possibly have any doubts.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means whether this new Standing Order will interfere with the right of the Private Member to object to Bills when they are brought before the House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: No, Sir, certainly not.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
After Standing Order 223, insert new Standing Order,—
Where it is sought by a proposed Instruction to authorise or require a Committee on a Private Bill to make an amendment in the Bill, Mr. Speaker, if he is of the opinion that the amendment is such that, if proposed by the promoters, a petition for additional provision would have been required, shall decline to propose the question on the Instruction to the House.

PRIVATE BILLS.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 87, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, namely,


Ashdown Forest.
Banbury Waterworks.
Barnet District Gas and Water.
Barnsley Corporation.
Bath Corporation.
Berkshire County Council.
Burgess Hill Water.
Canvey Island Urban District Council.
City of London (Various Powers).
Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council.
Dartford Tunnel.
East Anglesey Gas.
Eastbourne Extension.
Folkestone Pier and Lift.
Hastings Extension.
Hertfordshire County Council (Colne Valley Sewerage, etc.).
Ilford Corporation.
Kingsbridge and Salcombe Water Board.
Liverpool United Hospital.
Mansfield District Traction.
Margate Broadstairs and District Electricity.
National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty.
Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation.
North Devon Electric Power.
North Devon Water.
Pontypool Gas and Water.
Poole Corporation.
Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water.
Rowley Regis Corporation.
Saint Paul's and Saint James' Churches (Sheffield).
Sheppey Water.
Shoreham Harbour.
Taf Fechan Water Supply.
Taunton Corporation.
Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council.
Warrington Corporation.
Wessex Electricity.
Woodhall Spa Urban District Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

JUVENILES (INSTRUCTION COURSES).

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Labour how many local authorities in the Special Areas have provided the medical services for juveniles attending authorised courses; and what financial assistance is


given by the Government in order that the service may be adequate?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): Eleven education authorities conducting authorised courses of instruction in the Special Areas of England and Wales and Scotland, are understood to have made arrangements to a varying extent, for the provision of medical services for juveniles attending such courses. The standard rate of grant on this service is 75 per cent., but where certain conditions are fulfilled this rate of grant may be raised to 100 per cent. of the approved additional expenditure.

Miss WARD: Can my right hon. Friend say what the varying conditions are?

Mr. BROWN: There are two—not less than 30 per cent. of the average total of unemployment in the area of the local authority during the financial year for which the extra grant applies; and the total rate levied should not be less than 15s. in the £ for the financial year for which the extra grant is claimed.

LOCAL TRAINING CENTRES.

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider establishing a medical centre in connection with the Government training centres?

Mr. E. BROWN: The facilities at the local training centres which are being set up in the Special Areas in England and Wales will include the provision of medical, dental and optical treatment for men who cannot at present be admitted to the Ministry's centres owing to minor physical disabilities.

Miss WARD: While thanking the Minister, am I to understand from the reply that such services will also be given to centres which are already established

Mr. BROWN: These are for fit persons, but the hon. Lady knows that medical attendance is always available.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies there are at present in the training centres for youths from the depressed areas?

Mr. BROWN: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to schemes of training for boys under 18 years of age, provided by public authorities or voluntary bodies

and grant-aided by my Department. At the two domestic training centres for boys administered by the Y.M.C.A. and the Boy Scouts' Association in London and Monmouthshire respectively there are at present no vacancies. Under the various farm training schemes there are 35 vacancies out of 110 places. There are also vacancies in the schemes for training boys for the mercantile service, but I do not know the precise number.

HOYLAND.

Mr. PALING: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the Hoyland area; and what percentage of the number of insured persons such a number represents?

Mr. E. BROWN: On 23rd November, the latest date for which statistics have been compiled, there were 1,984 persons, insured and uninsured, on the registers of the Hoyland Employment Exchange. The number of insured persons recorded as unemployed at the same date was 1,869, of whom 1,009 were wholly unemployed (i.e., out of a situation) and 860 were absent from work owing to short time or temporary suspension from their employment. If the numbers of insured persons recorded as unemployed are expressed as percentages of the total number of persons (estimated at about 5,000) holding unemployment books issued through the Hoyland Employment Exchange, the resulting percentages are: wholly unemployed, 20·2 per cent.; temporarily suspended, 17·2 per cent. I understand, however, that there are substantial numbers of insured persons in Hoyland holding unemployment books issued through Employment Exchanges in other localities. While precise information is not available as to the number of such persons, it would appear that the total number of insured persons in Hoyland is considerably in excess of 5,000 and that the actual percentages of unemployment among insured persons generally in that district will, therefore, be appreciably lower than those indicated by the above calculations.

Mr. PALING: Is it the intention to include such areas in the legislation for Special Areas?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot answer that question now.

Mr. PALING: Is not all the trouble that has arisen in this House due to the


fact that hon. Members are continually asking that not only Special Areas should be recognised as such, but that other areas equally hardly hit and not recognised should be dealt with?

Mr. BROWN: That is a general question to which I have given an answer, and it is under consideration in view of the Bill to be introduced in the following Session.

Mr. PALING: Is that specially being considered? Have the Government already decided whether these districts should have something done for them or not?

Mr. BROWN: I have nothing at the moment to add to previous answers.

CATERING TRADES AND HOUSEHOLD SERVICES.

Dr. LEECH: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will request Sir George Gillett, as Commissioner for the Special Areas, to urge the public authorities in the north-east area and in South Wales to make greater efforts to train and transfer unemployed young persons of both sexes to the catering trades and household services in London and the Home counties where employment at proper rates of pay is awaiting suitable applicants?

Mr. E. BROWN: Facilities for the training of adults and juveniles of both sexes for work in the catering trades and in household services are available at the various centres run by, or on behalf of, my Department or in voluntary organisations assisted by my Department. All possible measures are taken to draw the attention of suitable candidates to these facilities, but I regret that there is, and has been for some time, a shortage of recruits except in the case of boys. Recruitment is carried out by, or in cooperation with, the Employment Exchange service, but as I have already indicated, I should welcome any assistance which the local authorities in the north east area or in South Wales could give.

Mr. SHINWELL: Before young women or girls are urged to proceed to London and the Home Counties to take up work of this kind, will the right hon. Gentleman see that proper rates of wages are paid and proper conditions of labour are available?

Mr. BROWN: We always have that in mind.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable opinion that the Government are relying too much upon transference of individuals?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot debate that now.

Mr. G. HARDIE: What are the proper rates of pay? Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell us?

Mr. BROWN: I am not.

Mr. HARDIE: Should the right hon. Gentleman not be in a position to state what the rates are? When young people are being transferred should not the Minister study the conditions under which they are to live?

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I remind hon. Members that there are 100 questions on the Order Paper?

Mr. BANFIELD: Will the Minister undertake to see whether it is possible to set up a Trades Board for the catering trades?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. Was not the question of the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) a reflection upon the Chair?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not take it as such.

FOREST OF DEAN.

Mr. PRICE: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in any reorganisation of the Special Areas, he will consider the inclusion of the Forest of Dean in the benefits of the Special Areas Act in order to facilitate the attraction of new industries to a district which is already classed as depressed?

Mr. E. BROWN: I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Mr. PRICE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that in many parts of the Forest of Dean the percentage of unemployment is as great As in the Special Areas?

Mr. BROWN: Certainly.

NEW INDUSTRIES (SPECIAL AREAS).

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet sanctioned the appointment of the special travellers to work under the direction of the Commissioner for Special Areas; and whether he will state how many are to be appointed, the nature of their duties, and areas allotted?

Mr. E. BROWN: No decision has yet been reached; but the whole question of the methods to be adopted for the attraction of new industries to the Special Areas, including the possible augmentation of the staff of the Commissioner for this purpose, is being actively examined in connection with the preparation of the new Bill.

The following Table shows approximately the amounts paid in unemployment benefit and transitional payments or unemployment allowances at Employment Exchanges in the county boroughs of Cardiff and Swansea during the undermentioned periods.


Year ended 30th June.
Cardiff County Borough.
Swansea County Borough.


Insurance Benefit and Transitional Benefit.
Transitional Payments and Unemployment Allowances.
Insurance Benefit and Transitional Benefit.
Transitional Payments and Unemployment Allowances.



£
£
£
£


1925
242,292
—
203,154
—


1926
270,928
—
225,576
—


1927
355,656
—
379,151
—


1928
315,515
—
269,702
—


1929
426,488
—
286,720
—


1930
450,173
—
350,168
—


1931
707,678
—
638,586
—


1932
491,754
243,133
433,820
220,484


1933
286,184
468,833
241,059
359,168


1934
253,760
464,181
207,121
291,843


1935
320,212
432,667
306,668
321,824


1936
318,311
467,763
296,653
418,591



4,438,951
2,076,577
3,838,378
1,611,910


The figures are exclusive of payments made through associations, for which a geographical analysis is not available.

TRANSFEREES.

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the bad conditions for boys transferred from the North to the Austrian velours hat factory at Aylesbury and whether he can undertake that no further boy labour will be sent there until conditions have improved?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have just received a report on an investigation which was made in consequence of certain com-

BENEFIT AND ALLOWANCES (CARDIFF AND SWANSEA).

Mr. S. O. DAVIES: asked the Minister of Labour the amounts of money paid out each year, under the several Un-employment Acts, in unemployment benefit, transitional payments, unemployment assistance board allowances, etc., commencing 30th June, 1924, up to 30th June, 1936, for the county boroughs of Cardiff and Swansea, respectively?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

plaints, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have had an opportunity of considering it. I should add, however, that the complaints did not relate to boy labour. No boys have been transferred through the machinery of my Department to this firm during the present year, and I am informed that only two boys previously so transferred are now in the firm's employment.

Miss WILKINSON: I do not ask only in regard to boys transferred through


the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but boys transferred through another agency to this firm at Aylesbury. Will the right hon. Gentleman take notice of this matter? I have seen 12 boys who were working there with very bad sores on their arms.

Mr. BROWN: With regard to the last point mentioned by the hon. Lady, she must know that that is a matter for the Home Secretary, and not for me. I pointed out in my answer that I have had a complaint but it did not refer to boys. I will consider the report I have received and then look into the matter.

Viscountess ASTOR: How often shall we have to complain against firms that are really breaking the law? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that these small fines do no good at all?

Mr. JAGGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his inquiries an inquiry as to who it is that sends these boys to Aylesbury and the relationship that exists between that person and the managing director?

Mr. BROWN: I have said that no boys have been transferred through my Department.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state, to the nearest available date, the number of unemployed persons transferred from each of the Special Areas; the number of persons whose removal has been subsidised from State funds; the number of young people transferred in respect of whom payments have been or are now made; and the total expenditure from State funds incurred?

Mr. BROWN: From 1st January, 1935, to 31st October, 1936, 49,789 persons (comprising 23,174 men, 10,090 women, 9,184 boys, and 7,341 girls) from the Special Areas have been placed in employment in other districts by my Department. Of the 16,525 juveniles, 7,921 came from Wales, 6,467 from Durham and Tyneside, 1,164 from West Cumberland, and 973 from Scotland; maintenance grant has been, or is being, paid in 7,319 cases. Similar figures in respect of adults are available from September, 1935. Of 23,602 men and women transferred from the Special Areas since that date, 11,124 came from Durham and Tyneside, 9,064 from Wales, 2,615 from

Scotland and 799 from West Cumberland. From 1st April, 1935, to 31st October, 1936, 8,585 families have been assisted to remove from the Special Areas. The total expenditure incurred over the period 1st January, 1935, to 31st October, 1936, is estimated at £230,000.

Mr. JENKINS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be much better to spend the money in the Special Areas and provide work there rather than transfer people from the Special Areas?

Mr. BROWN: I should be glad to have new industries. I am sure that many of these men, women and boys are very glad to have opportunities of useful work.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the dates relating to the first part of the question?

Mr. BROWN: From 1st January, 1935, to 31st October, 1936.

Mr. LAWSON: Are the Government in their coming legislation contemplating compensating the areas from which these youngsters come for loss of citizens?

Miss WILKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman before granting licences to foreign firms, such as the one at Aylesbury, to settle in the London area, insist as a condition of the licence that there should be proper conditions and that they should go into the distressed areas?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. THORNE: Does it not mean that when these men are brought to various parts of London, unless some work is found for them, it is a case of removing them from one unemployment area to another?

Mr. BROWN: That is not so. The situation from day to day and week to week at the exchanges in this district is that there are shortages.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge whether the persons who have been transferred have permanent employment and whether any have had to be re-transfered to the Special Areas?

Mr. BROWN: We have a number of letters of thanks from boys who have been found work in this way.

RENT ALLOWANCES (DURHAM).

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour what is the nature of the arrangements made in regard to the rent allowance by the various advisory committees in the administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields?

Mr. E. BROWN: I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving him the information he desires.

Following is the statement:

A. Each of the nine Advisory Committees has recommended that for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) (a) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1936, the amounts ascertained under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should he increased as follow:

Where the net rent is greater than one-quarter of the total of the scale rates of all members of the household the amount ascertained as aforesaid should be increased by the lesser of the two following sums:

(a) the amount by which the net rent is greater than one-quarter of the scale rates;
(b) the difference between one-quarter and one-third of the scale rates.

The Durham, Bishop Auckland and Sunderland Committees have added the following proviso to their recommendations:
Where the rent is more than one-third of the scale rates and in the opinion of the board's officers is:

(1) Not higher than the rent which the householder would be likely to and could afford to pay if in employment, and
(2) Is reasonable having regard to the accommodation supplied,
then the amount ascertained as aforesaid should be increased by the full amount of the difference between one-quarter of the scale rates and the net rent.

[Note.—In considering cases in which the rent paid may be in excess of one-third of the scale rates of the household the board's officers have been instructed to deal with each case on its merits and in appropriate cases to make such further adjustments as the circumstances may justify.]

B. The committees' recommendations for the adjustment of allowances where the net rent is less than one-quarter of the total scale rates of all members of the household are as follow:

(a) Durham and Bishop Auckland Advisory Committees.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference between the net rent and one-quarter of the scale rates exceeds 3s., provided that where an applicant has removed from reasonable accommodation to accommodation which, in the opinion of the board's officers, is inadequate, the application of this rule shall be at the discretion of the board's officers.

(b) Sunderland Advisory Committee.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference between the net rent and one-quarter of the scale rates exceeds 3s.

(c) South Shields, Middlesbrough and the Hartlepools Advisory Committees.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference between the net rent and one-quarter of the scale rates exceeds 2s.

(d) Gateshead and District Advisory Committee.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference between the net rent and one-quarter of the scale rates exceeds 2s. 6d.

(e) Blaydon, Hexham and District Advisory Committee.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference


between the net rent and one-quarter of the scale rates exceeds 2s. 6d., provided that in the case of an applicant living under predominantly rural conditions a reduction should be made to the extent that the net rent is less than one-quarter of the scale rates.

(f) Darlington, Advisory Committee.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference between the net rent and one-quarter of the scale rates exceeds 2s., provided that in the case of an applicant living in a locality which is predominantly rural in character a reduction should be made by and to the extent that the net rent is less than one-quarter of the total scale rates.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY, WEST RIDING.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Minister of Labour whether the West. Riding textile employers have yet notified their willingness to implement the findings of his Board of Inquiry, which was set up at their request?

Mr. E. BROWN: I understand that a meeting between the employers' and operatives' organisations concerned is taking place to-day, and I am hopeful that they will find in the unanimous recommendations of the board a basis upon which to reach agreement.

HAIG DISTILLERIES, MARKINCH.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the young women workers employed at the Haig distilleries, Markinch, prior to the recent strike there have been reinstated and how many have not yet been taken on again; and whether, in view of the fact that overtime is being worked in the duty-paid department, he will make representations to the firm to secure the reinstatement of those young women who have not received their jobs back?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am making further inquiry into the position, and will inform the hon. Member of the result as soon as possible.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these people are in an organised trade union and, if

so, whether any negotiations have been conducted?

Mr. BROWN: I prefer to add nothing to what I have said. I have had some correspondence about this matter, and I will complete my inquiries. If the hon. Member desires information I shall be glad to let him have it.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (EX-SERVICE S-CLASS CLERKS).

Mr. BANFIELD: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, owing to the prevailing dissatisfaction in the Ministry of Health regarding the treatment of ex-Service S-class clerks, the functioning of Whitley machinery in that Department has been suspended; and whether he will place the conciliatory machinery of his Department at the disposal of the official and staff sides of the Ministry of Health in order to resolve the existing difficulties?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am aware of the circumstances referred to, but see no reason to intervene in a matter arising in connection with the promotion procedure of another Government Department.

Mr. BANFIELD: Is the Minister not aware that his conciliation department might very well be used in this matter?

Mr. BROWN: I see no reason why it should not be settled within the Department concerned.

FACTORIES BILL.

Mr. WHITE: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce the Factories Bill early in the new year; and whether he will arrange for copies to be circulated to Members during the Recess in order that there may be time for adequate consideration before the Bill in introduced?

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: asked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce the Factory and Workshop Bill in time for it to be circulated during the Recess and fully considered before the House meets?

Mr. THORNE: asked the Home Secretary when the new Factory Bill will be printed and circulated to Members;


and whether he intends introducing the Bill before the Easter Recess?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The preparation of this Bill has involved a great deal of discussion and consideration, but I am glad to say that it has now reached an advanced stage, and I hope that it will be possible to introduce it shortly after the Christmas Recess.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the preparation for this Bill has been going on for many years, and can we be quite sure as to the date when it will be forthcoming?

Sir J. SIMON: I am sure the hon. Member will realise that if you want a Bill of this sort to go through the House of Commons it is just as well to try to arrange as much as possible before the Bill is introduced. No method is worse than to have your controversy afterwards.

Mr. WHITE: Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to answer the question with regard to circulation?

Sir J. SIMON: I thought I had. I said that I hoped it would be possible to introduce the Bill shortly after the Recess.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Will the Bill he something more than a codifying measure?

Sir J. SIMON: The Bill, I think, was described in the Gracious Speech as a codifying and amending Bill.

DUTCH AIR LINER ACCIDENT (NEWSPAPER INQUIRIES).

Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, immediately following the news of the disaster to the Dutch air liner on 9th December, representatives of certain newspapers telephoned first to the wife and then to the mother of a man who bears the same surname as one of the victims and caused them to fear that he had lost his life in the accident, thereby causing them anxiety and distress; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to put a stop to the

growing tendency on the part of a section of the Press to intrude upon the affairs of private citizens?

Sir J. SIMON: I fully sympathise with the object which my hon. Friend has in view, but I do not think that the natural remedy is to be found in legislation directed against conduct of the kind to which he refers. It is a question of taste and of decency. During the past few weeks those who are responsible for the Press in this country have shown that they are fully able to exercise a wise restraint, and I have no doubt that they would be equally capable, if they were so minded, of putting a stop to inconsiderate and heartless intrusions upon private persons which are, I am sure, abhorrent to the vast majority of journalists and newspaper proprietors alike.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman want the House to understand that what he considers "wise restraint" depends on whether it suits the Government or not?

NORTH LONDON POLICE COURT (SPEED LIMIT CASE).

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that John Henry Wiltshire, of 150, Carling-ford Road, Tottenham, was charged at North London Police Court, on Tuesday, 1st December, with exceeding the speed limit on a motor cycle, and after pleading guilty a number of previous convictions were read out by a police officer; and, in view of the fact that Wiltshire had no previous convictions, will he make inquiries with a view to having the police records amended?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that after the defendant had pleaded guilty the court was informed that one previous conviction was recorded against a person of the same name but residing at a different address. The defendant denied that it related to him, and steps were at once taken to mark the police records accordingly.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the suspension of his licence for six months for a first offence ought to be looked into with a view to reducing it?

Sir J. SIMON: That is rather a different question. I was asked whether there had been these previous convictions.

POLICEWOMEN.

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary the total cost of policewomen in England and Wales, including rent allowances, uniforms, and other incidental expenses, for the 12 months ended the last convenient date; and what is the present strength of the Metropolitan policewomen?

Sir J. SIMON: The Metropolitan police expenditure in respect of policewomen during 1935–36 amounted to £15,156. I cannot give a similar figure for county and borough forces, but the cost of pay alone in those forces in 1934–35 was about £19,000. There are at present 75 policewomen in the Metropolitan police force.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent it is proposed to increase the strength in the Metropolitan area?

Sir J. SIMON: Does the hon. Member mean women police?

Mr. DAY: Yes, Sir.

Sir J. SIMON: Authority has been obtained for an increase, but I do not carry the exact figure in my mind. The number of women police is steadily increasing.

Viscountess ASTOR: Seeing that many local authorities have failed to obey, or are paying no attention to, his circular asking them to consider the advisability of having women police, can the right hon. Gentleman do something more drastic, bearing in mind that we should never have had men police but for the pressure of the central authority on local authorities?

Sir J. SIMON: I think the experience of the London area is probably an indication to other authorities, and I think we muse, expect a gradual development.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question, as some local authorities absolutely refuse to consider the appointment of women police?

LICENSED TRADE (STATE MANAGEMENT SCHEMES).

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Home Secretary the total profits received by the Treasury from the State management licensing scheme at Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarthy Firth, also the purchase prices paid for the properties and their present estimated value?

Sir J. SIMON: The total profits shown in the published accounts of the State management schemes from their inception to 31st March, 1936, were approximately £1,608,000. The cost of acquisition of the properties was £940,462, and the present book value of existing properties as shown in the last published accounts for the year ended 31st March last, after allowing for disposals and including additions and improvements, is £1,026,350.

Mr. JENKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an extension of these schemes to other parts of the country?

Mr. THORNE: Is it not the fact that the profit made last year was about £50,000?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the increase in the brewing trade and see how much they have made out of drink?

PULVERISED FUEL PLANTS (COAL DUST EXPLOSIONS).

Mr. WHITE: asked the Home Secretary whether the conference on the draft rules for the prevention of coal dust explosions in pulverised fuel plants has been held; and, if so, whether any action has been taken in this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir, and I understand that substantial agreement was reached and that the Chief Inspector is hoping to hear at an early date that the proposals have been definitely accepted by the members of the respective associations.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. De CHAIR: asked the Home Secretary whether the gas masks to be supplied to the civilian population in the event of war guarantee immunity against carbon monoxide and highly-dispersed arsenical smokes, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The civilian respirator protects against highly-dispersed arsenical smokes. It does not protect against carbon monoxide, but I am advised that carbon monoxide could not be used as a war gas.

Mr. De CHAIR: Can the Under-Secretary say why carbon monoxide could not be used for war purposes?

Mr. LLOYD: One of the main reasons is the low temperature at which carbon monoxide becomes a liquid.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the appointment of a Departmental Committee to investigate the efficacy of corporal punishment for certain classes of crime and to prepare amending legislation to abolish same as a punishment for some of the offences for which it is now authorised by law?

Sir J. SIMON: I will consider this matter.

Mr. DAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole question should be reviewed?

Mr. TURTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding to the list of offences liable to corporal punishment that of importuning by day?

Mr. BENSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a careful examination of criminal statistics shows that there is not a vestige of evidence that flogging is either desirable or necessary?

Sir J. SIMON: If there is going to be an inquiry I think we had better not pronounce judgment before the inquiry has concluded.

"RED BIDDIE."

Mr. AMMON: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Justices of the Holborn division as to the dangers arising from the consumption of "Red Biddie," and to the report of the Medical Officer of Health of the Borough of Kensington as to the harm arising directly due to the consumption of this

beverage; and will he take steps to prohibit the sale of "Red Biddie"?

Sir J. SIMON: I have made inquiry and am informed that no statement has been made by the Holborn Justices on the subject to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the reference to a report by the Medical Officer of Health of the Borough of Kensington, I understand that a report on the subject was in fact furnished for the information of the Kensington Justices, but has not been made public. As regards the last part of the question, I have no power to take any such drastic step as the hon. Member suggests, and I am not aware of any such evidence as would justify me in proposing legislation for the purpose.

Mr. AMMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman again look into the sources of his information, and is he not aware that the Holborn Justices circulated this statement to other benches?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Home Office and the Government bear in mind that when they reduced the price of beer, they said there would be more beer and less alcohol consumed, and that that is not the case?

DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS, LONDON).

Dr. SALTER: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the convictions for drunkenness for each of the districts in London mentioned in the concluding paragraph of the introduction to the Licensing Statistiscs, 1935?

Sir J. SIMON: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

DOMESTIC SCIENCE CLASSES.

Miss WARD: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of discussing with local education authorities the provision of materials in order that cooking may be adequately taught at domestic science classes?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): This matter has been engaging my attention for some time, and I have prepared a


memorandum on the subject, which I hope to discuss with representatives of local education authorities at an early date.

Miss WARD: Am I right in believing that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that cooking materials should be provided in the classes?

Mr. STANLEY: My memorandum sets out the position, which I hope to discuss with the local authorities.

BACKWARD CHILDREN.

Mr. VIANT: asked the President of the Board of Education what authorities have special classes for backward children, the number of children per class, and to what extent are specialists appointed to administer intelligence tests?

Mr. STANLEY: The problem of dull and backward children is receiving close attention, and there is a marked increase in the number of schools which make special arrangements for them. I am afraid, however, that the information at my disposal does not enable me to give a precise answer to the hon. Member's question. The great majority of local education authorities employ one or more school medical officers who are qualified to administer intelligence tests to backward children. A few authorities employ pyschologists among whose duties is that of applying such tests.

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is satisfied with the present system and the results of the provision of State scholarships at universities for pupils at State-aided secondary schools; and, as the reports from the examining bodies disclose the fact that the number of candidates who reach the standard of scholarship is considerably greater than the present number of scholarships available, will he consider increasing the number of scholarships offered annually?

Mr. STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Having regard to the other methods of assisting, with aid from the Exchequer, scholars from State-aided schools to proceed to the universities, I am not prepared at present to consider a further

increase in the number of State scholarships awarded annually.

Mr. DAY: Will the Minister consider whether the conditions under which these scholarships are awarded can be improved?

Mr. STANLEY: That is a different question.

PHYSICAL TRAINING COLLEGES (GRADUATES).

Mr. RANKIN: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the large number of persons in this country who are graduates of the various physical training colleges and who at present are not engaged in any employment connected with physical training; and whether he will arrange to obtain particulars of such persons with a view to devising some scheme for making use of their services?

Mr. STANLEY: I have not any precise information, but I am not aware that there is any unemployment among teachers who have completed a course of training at a physical training college. I understand that the Central Council of Recreative Physical Training is already compiling a register of qualified men and women who would be prepared to offer their services, but most of these are already engaged in physical training in the day-time.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is important to get qualified physical training teachers before he begins to have the classes, and is it true that there is really a shortage of proper fully trained teachers?

Mr. STANLEY: Undoubtedly if the demand increases very much, as we hope it will, a greater supply will be needed, but I was asked a question as to the present position.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

PINXTON, DERBYSHIRE.

Mr. RIDLEY: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken by him, in conjunction with the Blackwell Rural District Council, to re-house the tenants of houses in Meadow Row, Pinxton, Derbyshire, as to which a demolition order was confirmed by him in May, 1936?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have approved the acceptance of tenders by the rural district council and sanctioned loans for the erection of 34 houses in the parish of Pinxton and for the construction of the necessary roads and sewers. The council propose to use 20 of the houses for rehousing persons displaced from Nos. 27 to 46, Meadow Row, Pinxton, by the operation of a clearance order confirmed by me on 4th June last.

Mr. LEVY: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when he passes the plans for these new houses, it will be part of the duty of the local authority to see that there is an adequate water supply?

Sir K. WOOD: I hope so.

OVERCROWDING.

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Minister of Health in view of the fact that New Year's Day is to be the second appointed day under the Housing Act, 1935, what steps will be taken to inform the public before that date as to their precise responsibilities and obligations with regard to overcrowding?

Sir K. WOOD: Local authorities are empowered to publish the information referred to by my hon. Friend, and I have in circulars and on other occasions stressed the necessity of their making full use of these powers. I have no reason to suppose that in any area for which the appointed day is 1st January next, the local authority have failed to give adequate information to the public.

SALE OF MILK.

Mr. E. DUNN: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the difficulties which exist in connection with the sale of milk as the result of the judgments in the cases of Hunt v. Richardson and Grigg v. Smith which were decided 20 and 19 years ago, respectively; and whether he will now arrange for that reconsideration of the matter which was advised by the then Lord Chief Justice at the conclusion of his judgment in the latter case?

Sir K. WOOD: The matter is one which has already been the subject of much consideration. It raises, however,

questions of considerable difficulty, and I am not at present in a position to promise any action with regard to it.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Minister of Health whether the refusal to extend the free period of insurance to Mr. L. Stephenson, of 10, Richard Street, Jarrow, was due to his not being available for work during the period April-September, 1933; whether he is aware that this unavailability was entirely due to his serving a term of imprisonment because of his activities during an unemployment march in Durham; and whether, in view of the fact that his imprisonment was due to political activities and not to moral turpitude, he can review the case?

Sir K. WOOD: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. I have no power to vary the provisions of the Acts which make continuance of insurance during unemployment conditional upon availability for work.

Miss WILKINSON: In considering the question of availability or non-availability, must not some regard be paid to the circumstances in which the man is available or not available, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the man was imprisoned because of acts arising out of the protest during the unemployment agitation?

Sir K. WOOD: I understand he was imprisoned for assaulting the police.

CENTRAL VALUATION COMMITTEE.

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the dissolution of the Association of Poor Law Unions consequent upon the operation of the Local Government Act, 1929, causing a reduction in the personnel of the Central Valuation Committee to the extent of five representatives from that association, he intends to submit to Parliament a new scheme to reconstitute the committee in accordance with the powers contained in Section 57 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925?

Sir K. WOOD: I am advised that the dissolution of the Association of Poor Law Unions did not necessitate a new scheme reconstituting the Central Valuation Committee. I shall be glad to consider any representations that my hon. Friend may make to me as to the desirability of framing a new scheme.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: Is it not a fact that the five members who are elected to the committee are nominees of the Ministry, and that therefore the representatives of local assessment committees have no opportunity of putting forward their view?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to look into that.

PRIVATE MANUFACTURE OF ARMAMENTS (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have yet decided what action they will take to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of Armaments; and what action they propose to take?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. It is not expected that the examination of the report will be completed before Christmas.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: Is it not now three months since the Royal Commission presented their report, and can the right hon. Gentleman not give an assurance that the Government do not intend to shelve the report?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer I have already given, I think, expresses the attitude of the Government very fairly. I hardly think the hon. Gentleman will ask us to deal with the matter between now and Christmas Day.

GYMNASIA (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' FACILITIES).

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in England and Wales are at present providing in their areas gymnasium facilities other than in schools; and what is the present approximate annual maintenance and capital expenditure on such gymnasiums?

Sir K. WOOD: I regret that I am not in a position to give any precise information with regard to either part of the question.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider making some grant to the clubs already in existence?

Sir K. WOOD: I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should await the proposals which the Government will be making on this matter after the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

EMPIRE WINES (DUTY).

Mr. C. WILSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having in view the next revision of the Imperial preferences, he will re-examine the case for the granting of preferential rates of duty on such Empire wines as are fortified while in bond with cheap foreign spirits from Hamburg, Rotterdam and elsewhere, paying little or no duties, the mixture being sold as wine-cocktails at a price much below other beverages with a similar high alcohol content?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Due account will be taken of all relevant considerations when occasion arises.

Mr. WILSON: Would it not be possible to make representations to the importers of wine as to the deleterious effect of wine-cocktails upon the social habits of the people?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will consider the hon. Member's view.

Mr. LEACH: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give us an assurance that no avenue will be left unexplored and no stone left unturned?

MALE SERVANT LICENCE DUTY.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that cases have arisen where a doctor is compelled to take out a male servant licence for his chauffeur, while at the same time the chauffeur is compulsorily insurable in respect of unemployment; and whether he will consider taking steps to put an end to this anomaly?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: While I am aware that cases of this kind exist, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's contention that they are anomalous. On the subject of the Male Servant Licence Duty generally, I would refer him to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 1st December to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills).

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend think it right that an employer should have to pay this tax and at the same time make contributions to unemployment insurance?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I can hardly argue the point properly at Question Time, but if the hon. Member will refer to the answer which I have mentioned, he will see that the whole question is under examination.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WINE (IMPORTS).

Mr. BOULTON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the respective quantities of foreign wines and Empire wines imported into the United Kingdom, and the quantity of British wines produced, in the eight months ended 30th November, 1936; and the percentage increase in each case over the corresponding period of 1935?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Quantity of Imported Wines entered for Home Consumption and of British Wines (Sweets) charged with duty during the eight months ended 30th November, 1936.


——
Quantity (1,000 gallons).
Percentage increase over 1935.


Imported Wines:


Non-Empire (Full Rate).
7,634
8·1


Empire (Preferential Rate).
3,320
5·1


British Wines: (Sweets)
3,929
25·1

ANGLO-SPANISH CLEARING PAYMENTS.

Mr. RANKIN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that under the Anglo-Spanish Clearing Order payment for British fruit imports from the Canary Islands has to be sent through Madrid, and that since these islands are held by General Franco such payment is not reaching the producers concerned; and whether, in view of the considerable British capital invested in the Canary Islands, any steps can be taken to remedy the situation and to prevent the collapse of this trade?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Yes, Sir, and I must apologise for the length of the answer. His Majesty's Government have had under careful consideration the position which has arisen in regard, not only to the Canary Islands, but to all those Spanish territories which are covered by the Anglo-Spanish Payments Agreement of January last, and I am glad to have the opportunity of making the following statement:
The clearing procedure instituted under the Anglo-Spanish Payments Agreement of 6th January, 1936, has ceased to work satisfactorily and has placed serious obstacles in the way of Anglo-Spanish trade. It has accordingly been agreed between His Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government that the clearing procedure should be suspended. Under a Treasury Order which is being issued to-day, debts due in respect of Spanish goods imported into the United Kingdom after 19th December, 1936, are not payable to the Anglo-Spanish Clearing Office. Debts which are now due or may fall due hereafter in respect of Spanish goods imported into the United Kingdom up to 19th December, 1936, inclusive, must be paid to the Clearing Office. Information must continue to be supplied as heretofore to the Customs authorities in respect of Spanish goods imported into the United Kingdom.
It has been agreed in principle with the Spanish Government that the bulk of the sterling obtained from the export of all Spanish goods to the United Kingdom will be used for the purchase of United Kingdom goods. The necessary arrangements will be made by the Spanish Government in concert with His Majesty's Government. In existing


circumstances traders will, of course, be well advised to exercise due caution in making arrangements for exports to Spain and exporters should satisfy themselves, before shipping, that the intending importer has obtained any necessary permission to import and pay for the goods to be shipped.
His Majesty's Government will, when circumstances permit, take all appropriate steps to ensure, so far as possible, that outstanding debts due from Spain to this country are fully liquidated. The Spanish Government have given to His Majesty's Government an assurance that they for their part will arrange for the complete liquidation of such debts in a relatively brief period as soon as they are in a position to do so.
Informal assurances similar to those referred to above, as regards the utilisation of sterling obtained from exports to the United Kingdom, have been obtained in regard to the parts of Spanish territory not under the control of the Spanish Government.

COTTON GOODS (EXPORTS TO WEST AFRICA AND INDIA).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade the aggregate value of the exports of cotton yarns and manufactures to British West Africa and British India, respectively, during the month of November?

Dr. BURGIN: During November the total declared value of the exports from the United Kingdom of cotton yarns and manufactures (except apparel and embroidery) consigned to British West Africa was £473,000 and to British India £487,000.

ORANGES.

Major PROCTER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the dislocation of the Spanish orange trade and the consequent importation of larger quantities of oranges from Palestine, he will consider the desirability, as a matter of urgency, of removing the present duty levied on such oranges, in view of the fact that cheap oranges have now become a public necessity and that there is no trade organisation in this country which is in a position to make application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

Dr. BURGIN: Oranges are subject at this time of the year to the general ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. Any proposal that this duty should be removed is, in the first instance, a matter for the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is open to any United Kingdom interest concerned (for example, a wholesale or retail fruit trade association, of which there are several) to make representations to the committee in favour of the removal of the duty if they think fit.

Mr. LEACH: Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the original purpose of this duty and whether it has been served?

Dr. BURGIN: Not without notice.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS.

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on what grounds the Controller of the Stationery Office has refused the request of the North Eastern Development Board to have samples of work required on view in Newcastle-on-Tyne, so as to facilitate the tendering for work by firms in the distressed areas of the North East?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) on 16th December. The difficulties in the way of accepting the proposal of the North East Development Board are explained in correspondence between the Stationery Office and the Board, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the statement of the Stationery Office in the correspondence that they already have sufficient firms on their list for tendering is not in direct contradiction of the statement of the Prime Minister that it was desired, all things being equal, to give preference to the distressed areas?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think the hon. Member must be referring to a different correspondence from that which I propose to send to her.

Miss WILKINSON: May I then ask, it being the fact that the Stationery Office have said that, whether the policy of the Department is not therefore in direct conflict with the policy indicated by the Prime Minister when he said that, other things being equal, a preference Would be given to the distressed areas?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement as being accurate that, the Stationery Office will not go outside the firms on their present list.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. The Minister has said that he does not accept my statement as being accurate. May I point out that it is a quotation from a correspondence between his Department and the North Eastern Development Board?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Miss WILKINSON: On a further point of Order. With very great respect, may I ask whether it is in order for a Minister to say directly to a Member that he does not accept a statement made by that Member although the authority for that statement is in a communication from the Minister's own Department?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: I see nothing out of order in that at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAYS AGREEMENT ACT, 1933.

Mr. RIDLEY: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the work scheduled to the Railways Agreement Act, 1933?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) on 18th November, of which I am sending him a copy.

TRAFFIC LIGHT SIGNALS.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to stimulating night traffic and thereby relieving street congestion in the

daytime, he will consider suppressing, as in other countries, the green and red traffic lights after midnight, and allowing the amber light to show all night, not stopping traffic, but merely giving a warning at danger spots?

Captain HUDSON: I doubt whether the adoption of my hon. Friend's proposal would have the effect which he desires. Highway authorities are not bound to keep signals working throughout the whole 24 hours, but the practice makes for safety, and my right hon. Friend would not be prepared to discourage it.

Captain PLUGGE: Will my hon. and gallant Friend investigate what is done in this respect in other countries where traffic light signals were in use before we had them?

Captain HUDSON: We have certain information as to what is done in other countries, but it does not necessarily follow that what is done in other countries is the best thing to do here.

DONCASTER-BARNSLEY ROAD.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Doncaster to Barnsley Road at Scawsby is scheduled for reconstruction by the West Riding Council in 1939–40; and whether, in view of the dangerous character of the road at this point and the frequent motor accidents, he will approach the council to put the work in hand at an early date?

Captain A. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will ask the county council to consider the desirability of giving priority to this scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

CREWS (NATIONALITY AND WAGES).

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a list of the persons employed as master, officers and crew of the steamship "Brodwal," the nationality in each case, and the rates of wages paid?

Dr. BURGIN: As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

List of Crew of Steamship "Brodwal" for voyage commenced at Galatz, 27th August, 1936. (These are the latest particulars available).


Name.
Nationality.
Rating.
Wages per month.



£
s.
d.


N. Klimos
Greek
Master
Not shown.


P. Perdery
French
Chief Officer
10
0
0


N. Klimos
Greek
2nd Officer
7
10
0


E. H. Ward
British
Wireless Operator
12
10
0


J. Morozanis
Greek
1st Engineer
12
0
0


K. Hartcheonicos
Greek
2nd Engineer
9
0
0


P. Silos
Greek
3rd Engineer
7
10
0


M. Zanoulitzin
French
Boatswain
6
0
0


O. Zanoulitzin
French
Cook
6
0
0


A. Andoniadis
Greek
Steward
6
0
0


Ahmet
Turk
Fireman
5
10
0


D. Michaelov
Jugo Slav
Donkeyman
6
0
0


Maksot
Turk
Sailor
5
0
0


A. F. Mavronicolos
Greek
Fireman
5
10
0


Z. Fokos
Greek
Fireman
5
10
0


N. Mitropios
Greek
Fireman
5
10
0


A. Podosenis
Greek
Fireman
5
10
0


X. Povonuriz
Greek
Sailor
5
0
0


Shefki
Turk
Sailor
5
0
0


Refik
Turk
Sailor
5
0
0


Hussein
Turk
Fireman
5
10
0

Mr. SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the owners of the steamship "Dumfries," by discharging their British-born seamen and substituting lascars, are saving the sum of £45 per month in wages, although increasing the number of the crew by 20 persons; whether the rates of pay given to the lascar seamen and firemen are in accord with the decisions of the National Maritime Board; and whether any application has been made for assistance under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act in respect of the voyage or voyages made by this vessel since 19th November, 1936?

Dr. BURGIN: I understand that the saving in wages is approximately as stated by the hon. Member, but I am informed that there are additional costs incurred in the employment of the lascar crew, for example, additional food costs. As regards the second part of the question, the National Maritime Board decisions as to rates of wages do not apply to the lascar crew who were engaged in India on Lascar Agreements. As regards the last part of the question, the voyage of the "Dumfries," which began on 19th November, is not yet complete, and an application for subsidy could not therefore have been made.

Mr. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the actual conditions of the alleged Lascar Agreement; is he aware that no such agreement in fact exists and that agreements are made either through a Serang or directly with the master of the ship as to the wages paid to these seamen?

Dr. BURGIN: I cannot obviously give information about a particular agreement without having the question on the Paper.

Mr. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman agree with me, if I tell him that the India Office has so informed me by letter?

Mr. SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the officers or members of the crews of the steamship "Martis" and steamship "Toussika" are of British nationality; and, if so, will he state the number and their ratings?

Dr. BURGIN: According to the latest information available in the Board of Trade no officer or other member of the crews of the steamship "Martis" and steamship "Toussika" was of British nationality.

Mr. SMITH: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that where the master and the wireless operator are other than British as they are in many cases, it is likely to


accrue to the good of this country, in view of the information which they are able to obtain from Admiralty sources and by means of wireless communications?

Dr. BURGIN: I was asked a specific question as to the nationality of the members of the crews of these ships, and not as to the policy which governs this matter. The hon. Member will find that Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, does not apply unless a vessel is going from a place in the United Kingdom. Neither of these vessels is touching the United Kingdom at all.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. R. GIBSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that 40 per cent. of the cost of building modern high-speed ships in Japan is being paid to builders by the Japanese Government; and whether, seeing that in the modern competitive conditions of shipping British shipping interests are unable to hold their own, he will, as a condition of assistance being given to British shipping interests by the Government, insist on public control of British shipping to safeguard the standards of British seamen and of the public served by our shipping?

Dr. BURGIN: I am aware that the Japanese Government are giving substantial financial assistance for the construction of high-speed merchant ships, but I cannot accept, and do not believe that the British shipping industry would endorse, the hon. Member's sweeping statement that British shipping interests are unable to hold their own. As regards the

Year.*
Great Britain and Ireland.
World total.
Proportion of the total registered in Great Britain and Ireland.



Thousand tons gross.
Thousand tons gross.
Per cent.


1914–15
19,257
49,074
39·2


1919–20
16,555
50,886
32·5


1930–31
20,438
69,608
29·4


1931–32
20,303
70,131
29·0


1932–33
19,672
69,734
28·2


1933–34
18,701
67,920
27·5


1934–35
17,735
65,577
27·0


1935–36
17,400
64,886
26·8


1936–37
17,285
65,064
26·6


* The figures relate approximately to the middle of the year first-named.

Separate particulars relating to tramp tonnage are not available, nor are par-

last part of the question, the hon. and learned Member may rest assured that the Government are fully alive to the interests of British seamen and the public.

Mr. GIBSON: If the hon. Gentleman is aware of the position set out in the question what steps is he taking to meet it?

Mr. LEACH: If British shipping interests are holding their own as successfully as the hon. Gentleman says, why is he subsidising them?

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: And why do they employ lascar labour?

BRITISH TONNAGE.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of total world oceangoing tonnage was registered in the United Kingdom in August, 1914, 1919, 1930, and in each succeeding year to the present;
(2) what proportion of total world tramp tonnage was British-owned in August, 1914, 1919, 1930, and in each succeeding year to the present?

Dr. BURGIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The gross tonnage of mercantile vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards registered in Great Britain and Ireland and in the world, as recorded in the editions of Lloyd's Register Book for the years specified, was as follows:

ticulars available for all years relating to vessels of a larger size.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

CANNEL COAL.

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the statement in the report of a subcommittee of the Scottish Development Council that there are 77,000,000 tons of cannel coal yet unworked and capable of yielding 40 gallons of oil to the ton, he can give any information as to the oil taken from cannel coal at Kilmaurs, Ayrshire, in the years 1913 and 1914; and can he give any reasons for the discontinuance of this process?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Wedderburn): I understand that the records of the Mines Department do not contain any information regarding the production of oil from cannel coal at Kilmaurs in 1913 and 1014, but inquiries are being made into the matter, and the result will be communicated to the hon. Member.

Mr. HARDIE: Why is it that when the Secretary for Mines, answering for his Department the other week, said there was no knowledge of any cannel coal being in Scotland, now we find an ordinary survey showing that there are 77,000,000 tons already in Scotland, and can he say why it is that this information about Scotland is not on the files of the Mines Department?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: That is one of the matters into which I have asked the Mines Department to inquire.

DEPRESSED AREAS.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in framing the new legislation to deal with the problems arising in the depressed Areas, he will give the advantage of the provisions to the whole of the county of Linlithgow, and cancel the arrangement whereby the county is divided into two portions, one entitled to special consideration and the other not so provided for?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: The whole problem of the depressed areas is at present under review, and I must ask the hon. Member to await the Government's proposals on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

FACILITIES (BAILBROOK, SOMERSET).

Mrs. TATE: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that it is impossible to buy a stamp in the village of Bailbrook, Somerset, there being no post office; and whether he has under contemplation the provision of Post Office vans to visit villages such as Bailbrook which are now without Post Office facilities?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): Bailbrook is within 600 yards of a post office, and the provision of an office there would not be justified. I will, however, endeavour to arrange for a resident to sell postage stamps. The sale of postal stock from vans in rural areas is not in contemplation at present.

GEORGE VI STAMPS.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Postmaster-General whether George VI stamps will be available by the date of the Coronation; and whether he proposes to consult the Royal Fine Art Commission concerning the design of these stamps so that they may be worthy of the occasion?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: No decision has yet been reached as regards stamps of the new reign. I will bear in mind the suggestion that the Royal Fine Art Commission be consulted concerning the design.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: In view of the hostile criticism of the present stamps lay artists who were not called in by the Government, will my hon. Friend ask those same artists to submit an agreed design, so that we can see whether they can give a design for the new stamps better than the last one?

BROADCASTING (ELECTRICAL PLANT, INTERFERENCE).

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the effect on television sets of radio interference from petrol engines using electrical contrivances; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation making it compulsory for electric gear of any kind to be fitted with the necessary radio noise-suppressors?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I am aware of the liability to interference with television reception from the source mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) on 30th November last, a committee appointed by the Institution of Electrical Engineers has recently investigated the subject and has recommended that statutory powers should be sought. The committee's recommendations are at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

COKE OVENS, GLAMORGAN AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Sir REGINALD CLARRY: asked the Secretary for Mines the present effective capacity in coal carbonised per annum of the coke ovens in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire; and what increased consumption of coal in this direction is estimated for the year 1937?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I regret that this information is not available.

FIREDAMP DETECTION (COMMITTEE.)

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet set up the committee to watch the progress of the Firedamp Detector Regulations, 1935; and, if so, will he state the personnel and when they will commence their sittings?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am setting up a committee with terms of reference to inquire into the working of the Firedamp Detector Regulations, 1935, and to make recommendations. The members of the committee will be:
Mr. F. H. Wynne, C.B.E., His Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Mines.
Mr. W. Frowen, General Secretary to the General Federation of Colliery Firemen's, Examiners' and Deputies' Associations.
Mr. H. Hicken, Secretary to the Derbyshire Miners' and By-Product Workers' Union.
Mr. G. P. Hyslop, Mining Engineer.
Mr. A. E. Naylor, Manager of Shire-brook Colliery,
and I am pleased to say that Mr. Isaac Foot, one of my predecessors in office,

has agreed to act as chairman. No arrangements have yet been made with regard to the date on which the committee will commence its sittings, but there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will periodical reports be submitted to the Mines Department?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I could not say.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (CRUISERS).

Mr. CHURCHILL: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the retention in His Majesty's service of the five cruisers due to be scrapped under Treaty arrangements before the end of the year?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Samuel Hoare): For some time His Majesty's Government have been giving serious consideration to the question of the scrapping of five over-age cruisers in order to conform with the provisions of the London Naval Treaty of 1930. In view of the deterioration of the general international situation, this is obviously not a moment at which any Power would wish to scrap serviceable vessels, and His Majesty's Government have therefore been exchanging views on this subject with the other parties to Part III of the London Naval Treaty, namely, the Governments of the United States and Japan. The United States Government have intimated that, if His Majesty's Government decide to have recourse to Article 21 of the London Naval Treaty to retain these vessels, on the ground that the requirements of our nation's security necessitate this action, no objection will be raised by them. No final answer has yet been received from the Japanese Government, but we have reason to believe that their reply will also be favourable.
I am glad. therefore, to be able to inform the House that we expect, in the course of the next few days, to convey to the Governments of the United States and Japan an official intimation of our intention to have recourse to Article 21 of the London Naval Treaty to retain these cruisers on the ground stated above. I should like to take this opportunity to give public expression to our appreciation


of the sympathetic and helpful attitude adopted by the Governments of the United States and Japan in this matter.

Mr. BELLENGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this will have any effect on the building programmes of the other two Powers who were signatories of that Treaty?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly not on the building programmes. It might raise questions of scrapping, but certainly not of building.

Mr. LEACH: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the age limit of these vessels. What is the age limit of this particular form of vessel?

Sir S. HOARE: That is obviously a question that had better be put on the Paper.

Mr. MACLAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the President of the Board of Trade to apply somewhat the

same argument that he used just now in connection with battleships to merchant service vessels of the larger size?

Sir S. HOARE: That is a consideration that does not affect my Department directly.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will accept general congratulations upon his considerable achievement?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That Government Business do have precedence on Wednesday, 20th January, and on Friday, 12th March."—[Sir J.Simon.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir J. Simon.]

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 109.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. P. G.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cooper, Rt.Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Assheton, R.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Holdsworth, H.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Cross, R. H.
Hopkinson, A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crowder, J. F. E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cruddas, Col. B. Culverwell,
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Balniel, Lord
Culverwell, C. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'[...])
De Chair, S. S.
Hunter, T.


Beit, Sir A. L.
De la Bere, R.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Denville, Alfred
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Donner, P. W.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Blair, Sir R.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Blindell, Sir J.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Kimball, L.


Boulton, W. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Duncan, J. A. L.
Latham, Sir P.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Law. Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ellis, Sir G.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Brass, Sir W.
Elmley, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Emery, J. F.
Leigh, Sir J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Emmott, C. E. C. G
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Levy, T.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Everard, W. L.
Lewis, O.


Bull, B. B.
Fildes, Sir H.
Liddell, W. S.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Lloyd, G. W.


Butler, R. A.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cary, R. A,
Gledhill, G.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)


Channon, H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Granville. E. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Clarke, F. E.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Grimston, R. V.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Guy, J. C. M.
Macquisten, F. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Magnay, T.


Colville, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hannah, I. C.
Maitland




Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Markham, S. F.
Ramsbotham, H.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Rankin, R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Maxwell, S. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Tate, Mavis C.


Moreing, A. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Morgan, R. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Touche, G. C.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Rowlands, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Russell. S. H. M. (Darwen)
Turton, R. H.


Munro, P.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wakefield, W. W.


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Samuel, M R. A. (Putney)
Warrender, Sir V.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sandys, E. D.
Wayland, sir W. A.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Savery, Servington
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Patrick, C. M.
Scott, Lord William
Wells, S. R.


Peake, O.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Peat, C. U.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wright. Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Pilkington, R.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Plugge, L. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Porritt, R. W.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pownail, Sir Assheton
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Procter, Major H. A.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, G. D.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Hayday, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F.
Henderson. T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Hollins, A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen. R. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Leslle, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobble, W.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Dunn. E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGovern, J.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
White. H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibbins, J
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Report from the Joint Committee, in respect of the Firearms Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Second Report, with an Appendix, from the Committee on Public Petitions, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move,
That, being opposed to any action calculated to intensify the appalling distress prevailing in many parts of the country, this House is of opinion that the Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations, in so far as they will involve reductions in existing allowances, should be suspended.
The purpose of this Motion is to prevail upon the Government to refrain from reducing the allowances to the unemployed under the new Regulations. In moving the Motion in this form we on this side of the House have not in any way withdrawn our hostility to the Regulations as a whole, and especially to the means test. The Regulations are now in operation, and what increases are due will be paid before the end of the year. Then the cuts will operate, and we desire to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour and the Government to see that the cuts shall not be put into operation in any circumstances. There is much concern in the country as to these cuts. Already we have had large spontaneous demonstrations. Almost all my right hon. and hon. Friends on these benches have addressed these large gatherings, some numbering 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 people, and I myself have addressed a gathering of no fewer than 60,000 persons, all of whom were unanimous against these Regulations. Once the Regulations are understood there is no question about the hostility of the majority of the people to them. Whole districts are solid against them. Speaking now of South Wales, I have never known such unanimity against any Measure which has been carried in this House. Churches, chambers of trade, trade unions, and in South Wales all the political parties are opposed to these Regulations. It is no use the Minister of Labour attempting to deceive himself by delivering speeches in chosen places and writing articles in selected Conservative journals under the pretence that there is no opposition to the operation of these Regulations. I was very interested to read an article by the right hon. Gentleman in a journal which is called "Home and Empire," a Conservative party publication, in which he said:
When the Regulations became known in July last there was no protest, either

spontaneous or otherwise, and the effort to organise one fell as completely fiat as did the criticisms and protests of the Labour party during the three days Debate in the House of Commons.
I wish that very large numbers of the public had been allowed to hear the speeches which were delivered in that Debate. It will be remembered that we had a Debate of unprecedented length, and it can be said that from all quarters of the House hon. Members expressed themselves as being very concerned about the operation of the new Regulations. This concern is not confined to one political party. I have here the report of a speech delivered by a person of note in the councils of the Conservative party. The speech was delivered in my own division. Mr. David Evans of Trealaw, a member of the Conservative Central Council, the inner circle of the Conservative party, was described as a prospective M.P. He denounced the means test and the Regulations as emphatically and as contemptously as any Labour or Communist member. He said that as soon as the terms of the Regulations were disclosed, he got into touch with the Central Conservative Office, who asked him to make inquiries amongst the 75 Conservative clubs in South Wales as to what was their attitude towards the Regulations. In every case the clubs passed resolutions of protest against the operation of the Regulations. So emphatic was Mr. Evans in his attitude to the Regulations that he said:
have been connected with the Conservative party for 20 years. I have fought election after election for them. I have served on their committees. But on this question I am determined that I shall not raise one little finger to assist the Conservative party in putting these Regulations into operation.
I could go on quoting portion after portion of the speech condemning the operation of the Regulations. That speech was delivered by a Conservative living in an area which will feel the effect of the proposed reductions perhaps more than any other area in the country. It is useless the Minister of Labour pretending that the opposition to the Regulations is being organised by Members on this side of the House. Postcards in these terms have been sent in by Conservatives:
 I, the undersigned, being a member of the above Association—


this postcard came from the West Rhondda Unionist Association—
regard the scale of allowances as totally inadequate to enable the unemployed and their dependants to maintain a decent standard of existence. I regard them as an attack on the wage standards of the employed, and they will increase the suffering already existing in the neglected depressed areas of the country.
And it winds up with these words:
Give the employed a square deal and the unemployed a square meal. This is the only means test of real statesmanship.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour not to treat the opposition to these Regulations in the flippant way in which he has appeared to treat it in speeches and in reply to questions put to him in this House. We beg him to treat this matter in the same way as did his predecessor in office, in the speech which he delivered when introducing the Standstill Order. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, in that speech, said that the trouble in dealing with this problem was that we were dealing here not with business, not with finance, not with intangible things but with human beings, men, women and children. We would that the Minister of Labour and the Government would consider the wider social and economic cost of these paralysed and wretched groups of communities now suffering in South Wales, in the north, in Scotland, and to remember that they are a very heavy off-set to the seeming prosperity of the industrial Midlands, London and the south.
It can be truly said that the Special Areas of this country are in the melting pot, all of them similar to South Wales, where whole districts are being driven to destruction, where families are broken up, where homes are scattered and the people, young and old, are driven to despair. Among the mass of the people resident in those areas, stricken people, more damage has been wrought than among those who suffered during the four years of the Great War. On top of the already deplorable conditions now existing in those areas the new Regulations and the means test are to be imposed by the Government, and they will create new records of havoc and distress amongst the people, for their application will not only drive the unemployed still further into the depths of starvation,

but will impose new cuts on the already low wages of the employed workers, will further destroy home life, will so reduce the purchasing power of the people that small traders and shopkeepers will be driven into bankruptcy, and the already difficult task of the local authorities in those areas will be made impossible.
I do not think that the House itself realises the number of people who will be affected as a result of the operation of these Regulations. The Minister himself talks in terms of 750,000, 620,000 or 520,000. Those numbers represent only householders. The latest figure given by the Minister was 520,000. Those 520,000 with their dependants number 1,500,000 people, most of whom will suffer as a result of the incoming of these new Regulations. I put it to the Minister and to the Unemployment Assistance Board, which is so far removed from this problem, that they are responsible for the moral, physical and even the spiritual welfare of these millions of people. These men and their families have committed no crime. They are out of work through no fault of their own. Why should they be punished? These are the men who along the years have made a great contribution to the material wealth of this nation and to the domestic comfort of its people. They, with others, are responsible for the place that this nation holds in the industrial world—men who are absolutely indispensable, coal miners, steel workers, shipbuilders, engineers and so on, all in the productive industries. They were the real backbone of the nation. They were a proud people, maintaining their families, independent in every way, and good citizens.
To-day they are suffering the agony of idleness; they are living a life of hopelessness. The homes of which they were so proud are being destroyed; families are being separated; their wives, the bravest women in the world, have suffered indignity for the last five, six or seven years. Some of them have not been able to purchase a single new garment in that period. I do not want to despise the generosity of charitable persons who have been so good to these Special Areas. Lots of our people have been dependent on charity for their clothes for a number of years, instead of depending upon an adequate income. One could speak of one's own experiences, but


people as to the effect of unemployment in these areas. I have here a statement which appeared in a London newspaper. It is from a lady who has done considerable charitable work in the worst areas in South Wales. She asked those who live in the prosperous south-east of England and in London to have some idea as to the extent of the suffering in the districts where these new Regulations will make conditions very much worse—in Durham, in South Wales and other areas. She says:
Theoretically the Regulations regarding unemployment relief may sound fair, even generous. But in practice their working leaves room for numerous cases of acute poverty equal to any of the horrors of the last century.
She records her experiences in going around the homes of the Rhondda and other parts of South Wales. We do not hold the Minister and the Government blameless as to the conditions existing in those areas. I have here the report of a medical officer of health which came to me last week. It was considered by one of our local authorities on Thursday last. He is not a politician, not a, person who is trying to stir up political strife but a person charged with the care of the health of a very large urban district area in South Wales. He said:
Seventy-six per cent. of the pregnant and nursing mothers attend our Clinics. The majority of these are suffering from malnutrition at a period when it is essential that they should have the best food obtainable not only for their own sakes but also for their offspring. With their present income, it is impossible for them to buy even the necessary food required.
He went on to say:
The debilitated children that are seen at the clinics are often the result of the ill-nourished mother. Unfortunately a number of women in this Area arc unable to breast-feed their children owing to malnutrition.
He described the condition of the children:
In spite of the fact that 270 children in our schools are receiving one meal a day, we have only 55 who are normal, and 215 are still in a state of malnutrition. Out of 812 who have been receiving milk only 310 are normal.
And he concludes his report with these words:
In this Area we are already doing as much as it is possible to do, but it is still far from adequate for the needs of the growing child and the pregnant mother. I am of opinion that the whole of the community of

this Area is slowly but insidiously deteriorating owing to lack of nourishment.
That is the statement by the medical officer of health for Mountain Ash, a district where we have had between 40 per cent. and 45 per cent. of the insured persons unemployed. Eighty per cent. of these men have come under the operation of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and that is their condition. The report of the officers of the Glamorgan County Council recently issued showed that as a result of an investigation carried out in the administrative county they had discovered that 9,800 children between the ages of 5 and 14 required clothes, and 13,000 required boots. That is an indication that over 20,000 persons want boots and clothes, and are dependent on the slender resources of their parents or on the charity of charitably disposed persons. In passing, I may say how much we in South Wales appreciate the generous gift of Lord Portal of —2,500 to enable between 8,000 and 10,000 children to have a pair of boots each this winter. But is it not a scandal that the children of men who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed should be dependent on the charity of others for the food, clothes and boots they require?
During my membership of this House I have heard many Debates on the question of unemployment insurance benefit, but I have never heard it suggested that this benefit is something to take the place of wages. It was regarded as something to assist in tiding over a short period. When a person left work he had resources —clothes, boots, furniture and some savings—and it was never regarded as sufficient to enable the recipients to subsist on, but just as a contribution. This was not only the view of the unemployed and those active on their behalf, but it was also the view expressed by Minister after Minister of Labour. Everyone with any common sense knows that the longer a man is unemployed the greater are his needs. Not only are his needs greater, but he is deserving of more sympathetic treatment than he really gets. Those persons who under the Unemployment Assistance Board will be entitled to increases will receive them between now and Christmas or the New Year. These increases will be very slight and will be brought about almost entirely as a result of the adjustment of the rent scale or something like that.


The report of the Advisory Committee which dealt with the question of rent in my own area of Merthyr stated that out of 11,000 houses the rents of which will have to be considered, 8,400 are either on this scale or well below it, and only about 2,600 have rents which are above the scale and will be entitled to be taken into account if the recommendation of the Advisory Committee is put into operation. Two-thirds of the people who come under the Regulations will receive no increase, and a large proportion of them will suffer reductions. We are unable to ascertain what that number will be. The Ministry has been careful not to give even an estimate. I wonder whether the Government are afraid to give an estimate for fear of what is likely to happen. The Unemployment Assistance Board, after being in operation four or five months, frankly admitted that when the first Regulations came into operation they were surprised at the number of reductions which took place, a much larger number than they had estimated.
We are told in the Memorandum issued by the Minister and the Board that reductions will be necessary in a number of cases. Within the next four or five months some 60,000 persons will suffer reductions. That is the first batch. It is to be followed by others, and in some areas, we are told, the number to suffer reductions will be considerable. The places which will be more affected than others are those, like South Wales, where there are Labour majorities who have refused to apply rigidly the means test. I did not anticipate that when the standstill was brought into operation in February last year it would mean as much as it did to those who then came under the Regulations. We were told by the then Minister of Labour that the Regulations would inflict little hardship on the people. But from reports issued by the Minister of Labour we know that in fact 59 per cent. of the persons under the Unemployment Assistance Board were saved from reductions in their allowances as a, result of the operation of the standstill arrangement. Only 41 per cent. received the advantage that we thought the majority would receive.
Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to con-

sider before these cuts operate the introduction of another standstill? Is it not possible that these people whose conditions I have described should have their limited incomes protected? It may mean 1s., 2s., or 3s. a week, but I would ask hon. Members not to minimise the difference which 1s. or 2s. a week will make in the incomes of people who have existed on limited allowances for six, seven or eight years. In my standard of life 2s. a week would make no difference; 10s. a week would make little difference. But if my wife had to live on 26s. a week and 3s. for each child, for six or possibly 10 years, one or two shillings would make all the difference in the world to her. Hon. Members on this side have their homes visited by these people every Saturday morning. I wish I could portray to hon. Members the anxiety which exists in the minds of all these people who have suffered just 1s. a week reduction. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to remember the difference that it means to these people.
The Regulations are already in operation. To those who are passing from standard benefit and coming under the Board the Regulations are being applied. What does it mean? To single men over 21 living at home a reduction from 17s. to 10s. a week. Out of that 10s. one-quarter is added to the rent scale of the house, leaving 7s. 6d. a week for the single man over 21 to maintain himself in food, clothes and any of the other expenses necessary. We have, unfortunately, in the Special Areas homes where not only the father is unemployed but sometimes two, three or even four sons also. What is it going to mean to them? Under transitional benefit and standard benefit a father and mother would receive 26s., and each son over 21 would receive 17s. a week. As soon as these Regulations come into operation the sons will have a reduction of 7s. a week each. It will make a difference of 9s. where there is one son, and where there is a second son the difference will be 16s. a week.
I do not know anyone who understands what the operation of these Regulations must mean to the homes of the workers, and we beg hon. Members to look upon this Motion with the same feeling as we do. Take the position of single persons in the home. A son or daughter receiving


30s. a week is expected to contribute 7s. towards the maintenance of the parents. If I had a son or daughter living at home with me earning 30s. a week, and I was unemployed, my benefit would be reduced from 24s. to 17s. a week. If they earned £2 my allowance would be reduced by 12s.; if they earned £2 10s. it would be reduced by 17s., and if they earned £3 I would get 2s. a week, apart from what my son or daughter would contribute towards the maintenance of their parents. There is one thing which neither the Board nor the Ministry remembers. It is that there is nothing to compel these sons or daughters to make this contribution. It is assumed that they will. If they are living in the household, irrespective of their age, whether they make a contribution or not, the Ministry of Labour and the Board assume that they are doing so. There is no statutory power to compel them to do it, and I am not asking that there should be; it may be assumed that in large number of cases they will leave home.
The Government have been very clever. The justification given by the Minister for these Regulations is that the cuts will be spread, in some eases, over a period of five months, and in other cases over a period of 18 months. The Government has learned its lesson in connection with this matter—slow starvation. It would be very much more humane to kill them off at once than to starve them as is proposed by the operation of this liouidation, as it is called, of excessive benefits—as though any unemployed man, whether he receives standard benefit or comes under the Board, could have anything excessive. The Minister in his speech the other day justified the Board because, he said, there had been a steady increase in the weekly amounts paid to persons coming under the Board. He said that during the last two years there had been an increase of something like 2s. a week, making the tremendous total now of 23s. 7d. per week per family. But the Minister did not paint the full picture; he did not tell us that the increase in the average amount per week is largely due to the number of young men that are being transferred, so that there is a very much lower number of young people, which makes the average proportion of elderly people very much more.

The report of the Unemployment Assistance Board seemed to indicate that the average pay per family in Wales was higher than in England and Scotland; but the Board covered itself by saying that the seeming increase given to the people in Wales is caused by the fact that the percentage of women applicants in Wales is very much lower than in England or Scotland, which makes the average per family look very much more than it actually is. I think that this Debate this afternoon is very appropriate. I read with interest the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Conservative Conference, in which he referred to the need for improving the physical condition of the people, and said that, notwithstanding the fact that there has been an improvement in many branches of public service, there is, so far as the physical fitness of the people is concerned, much to be desired. The Chancellor left out one very essential thing; never during the course of his speech did he mention the question of food. I am more inclined to agree with the views recently expressed by a very well known and eminent doctor who, in the course of a speech on physical fitness, said:
Fitness for living, fitness for work, fitness for leisure, fitness for fighting, if needed, can never be obtained by physical exercises only. There are other still more basic things that are imperative in this matter—food, shelter, fresh air. Adequate food is fundamental in all these questions of fitness. Look after the accessibility of food for the people and nutrition and health will look after itself.
How is it possible for the people to be properly fed under the existing conditions? And, if the existing conditions are as I have described, what can we expect if these cuts are to operate? I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that as far as we are concerned the fight against the imposition of these Regulations is not ended. The people of this country should not continue to allow mothers to deprive themselves of necessary food in order to provide just a bite extra for their children and a little clothing to cover their nakedness. Those mothers cry out to this House that their children be given a fighting chance of a decent life and be allowed to grow up strong and healthy men and women. These little


children, who cannot speak for themselves, under-nourished and under-developed, express in their pale faces an unspoken appeal against horrifying conditions which will leave their mark upon them for the rest of their lives. Those men and women throughout the country who are suffering are looking to this House for support.
To-morrow the House will rise for the Christmas Recess. Most Members will have a happy time with their own families. I would that they would give one thought to the hundreds of thousands of homes where this festival will convey nothing more than an ordinary day. Santa Claus will not visit many of these places; the mothers will not be able to receive their husbands' wages and have the pleasure of purchasing just that little extra for the home, the doll for Mary or the toy for Johnny; millions of children will be disappointed; their stockings will not be filled; and, at a time like this, by the application of these Regulations, unless some step is taken by the Government, these cuts will be enforced and further hardship and suffering will be created for the poorest of the poor. For that reason my hon. Friends and I beg the Government not to impose these cuts. Why should any Government Department be used for the collecting of the pence or the shillings of the poor to reduce their already low standard? One cannot think of any other analogy than that of the coward who is inflicting a hardship upon someone very much weaker than himself. If these Regulations are imposed, not only will they be unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman, unworthy of the Board, unworthy of the Government, but they will be unworthy of the nation. For that reason I beg the House to join with us in passing this Resolution and preventing the cuts from being imposed.

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS rose—

Mr. A. BEVAN: On a point of Order. Is the House not going to be furnished with the guidance of the Minister in reply to my hon. Friend? We have not very much time to debate this Motion; if the original arrangement is to be kept, we shall proceed to other business at Half-past Seven; and I submit that we are entitled to ask that the discussion should take place in the light of the Minister's reply.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is hardly a point of Order. I suggest that the matter had better be dealt with through the usual channels.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: With regard to the alleged point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), it will be within the recollection of the House that, on the last occasion on which the Minister of Labour had to deal with a matter of this description, he was chastised by the other side because he spoke too soon. I know that I am not comparable with my old friend the Minister of Labour in this respect, but it seems to me that those of us who are supporters of the Government and come from distressed areas should say what we think on this matter. I listened with patience to the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), and I would ask hon. Members opposite to listen to me, as one who is here because he stood up for the means test even in a constituency where the population is 95 per cent. Working-class, and because they quite well understood that, if they wanted anything other than a means test, they could go to the "Yes, yes" men on the other side, and need not come to me at all. My constituents, the vast majority of whom, as I would again remind the House, are working-class people, decided that there must be a means test, but that it must be a humane one, and I am going to show indubitably—I never had an easier job in my life—that the present Government's means test is an immeasurably more humane one than that imposed by hon. Members opposite when they were in power a few years ago.
It has been said that public agitation was inevitable because of these new Regulations, but, after the House rose in July, the public took no more notice of these new Regulations than they did of the Anomalies Act which was passed by the Labour Government a few years ago. There were no public processions at all when the Anomalies Act was passed; there was no political agitation then in my constituency; and there is none at all on this occasion. To be quite frank with the House, I did get a letter from a gentleman who, I discovered afterwards, came from London, and who was the self-appointed secretary of the unemployed in


my constituency. He asked me to meet immediately a deputation from the unemployed. I said that of course I should be glad to see them, but, as my front room would only hold a certain number of individuals, I would ask him to confine the deputation to four; and he and three more came. After we had been there for an hour, I said to him, "You have told me about your individual cases, and I will see to them to-morrow morning" as I did—"but will you give me some of the thousands of cases of hardship that have occurred in connection with these Regulations"—hardships, let the House note, entailed by Regulations which did not come into force until November, and was then July. The number boiled down to four, including the three in the room. Those were all the cases that could be found out of the whole number of unemployed in my constituency—I regret to say some 9,000, though that is certainly better than the earlier figure, which was 13,000, and I am profoundly thankful for that fact.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Before the hon. Member leaves that point, would he tell the House what means test was imposed by the Labour Government?

Mr. MAGNAY: I was talking about the Anomalies Act. I made that quite clear.

HON. MEMBERS: The hon. Member said "the means test."

Mr. MAGNAY: If I said the means test, I certainly meant the Anomalies Act, and I am quite certain that I said the Anomalies Act, because that was what I intended to say. The Motion expresses what we all desire. It is an appeal for another standstill order, and that is what we all desire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course we do. [Interruption.] If hon. Members listen they will discover what my opinion is. The hon. Member for Aberdare said that matters would be worse in the distressed areas because of the reductions. Why is he so sure? How does he know that there will be inevitable reductions? Has he forgotten the existence of the local advisory committees? Surely they are of some use. [HON. MEMBERS: "In what?"] In advising. I understand that an advisory committee is set up to advise and to give counsel. I should have thought that that was the

plain English of it. They have to advise, in view of the local circumstances, what the Unemployment Assistance Board should do in individual cases. That is what makes the problem so difficult. I asked the Minister of Labour before the Christmas Recess two years ago to remember that this was a huge Socialistic experiment, and that you could not expect hard and rigid rules and regulations to fit every individual case. I prophesied what did, in fact, take place, that there would be a terrific bump before long.
The administration of the Regulations is difficult, because every case is different from the others, and the circumstances are constantly changing. Over and over again, within a few months, I have had to plead the cases of individual men, who found the position bearing very harshly upon them, although six months before they were quite content with what they were getting. The local advisory committees have humane ladies and gentlemen; there is no doubt about that. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite doubt it very much. Well, the chairman of the Labour party in Gateshead is the chairman of my advisory committee, and he bitterly opposed me in the last General Election. He is Alderman Peacock, known to many hon. Members on the other side, and he is the local chairman. Hon. Members may jeer at these people, but I am prepared to trust them. I trust him, Labour man though he is, because I know he is a humane gentleman who will see that fair play is given to poor people whom we all regret are so harshly punished.
I think that the hon. Member may be wrong, just as was the prophecy of his party four years ago that better trade was impossible under this Government. As I have said, there are 4,000 more people in work in my area. The Tyne is doing fairly well. There are only 19 ships laid up there instead of hundreds a few years ago. Things are improving, despite the prophecies of four years ago that improvement was impossible. The hon. Member said that the vast majority of poor people would suffer a reduction, but I beg to differ.

Mr. MAINWARING: What would the hon. Member do if it were true?

Mr. MAGNAY: I would do precisely as hon. Members are doing now. The House and the country have a right to expect better things of this Government. They remember what the allowances were ia the days of the Labour Government. I have taken care to verify my recollection, and I find that the allowances in 1931 were 15s. 3d. for a man, 8s. for a wife and 2s. for a child. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is not here, because it was he who moved that the allowance should not be increased to 3s. per child. The present Regulations are far more generous and are adaptable to the circumstances of every individual family. They offer not a comparison, but a contrast, with what the Regulations did when hon. Members were in office. Hon. Members are perfectly right, at the moment. They and the country have a right to expect better things from this National Government, and I shall be grievously disappointed if that does not result. [Interruption.] An hon. Members says that I am in for a grievous disappointment; the last time, if I may say so, rather gave the lie to his prognostication there. The last five years gives me reason to expect the same result. I am just as much concerned about the poorest of the poor as are hon. Members opposite. I differ from those hon. Members in my views, but the future alone will show whether I am wrong. If I am, I will admit it, but hitherto I have been right and they have been completely wrong. On this occasion, again I think I am right.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) would have ended his speech upon an entirely different note. I thought he was going to say that as there had been no reduction in the allowances, and as he did not anticipate that there would be any reduction, he proposed to vote for the Motion. The Motion says, in effect, that if the Regulations reduce the allowances they should be suspended in that respect. If the hon. Member believes what he says, that there will be no reductions, there is no reason why he cannot support the Motion. Is that the position?

Mr. MAGNAY: If that were my position there would obviously be no reason for the hon. Member opposing it.

Mr. BEVAN: I understand, therefore, that the hon. Member's position is that he apprehends that there will be reductions and he is not going to vote for the Motion because he does not want to prevent those reductions occurring. Which position does the hon. Member want to be in now? He delivered a speech which was unworthy of him. It would have been far better if he had directed himself to the Motion before the House, which asks hon. Members to live up to the protestations which we heard from them only a few weeks ago on this very matter. We discussed the proposals of the Government with respect to the distressed areas, and hon. Members told the Government that the proposals were so inadequate that unless new ones were brought in they would walk into the Lobby against the Government. What did hon. Members imply by that? It was that the Government had power to end the position in which a considerable number of the people in the distressed areas find themselves, but that the Government had been negligent in not using their powers to that end.
Hon. Members are expecting that by the beginning of the Spring the Government will bring forward proposals which will have the effect of putting a number of those people into employment. I should have thought the very least we could expect from hon. Members is to say that, in the interim between now and the time when the Government's proposals are brought in, the people who are unemployed in consequence of the negligence of the Government should not be further persecuted; but there is no Amendment to that effect upon the Order Paper. I should have thought that there might have been an Amendment from hon. Members opposite stating, in plain terms, that although they did not accept the whole of our Motion, it should be put into operation until the proposals of the Government are brought forward. There is no Amendment on the Order Paper to that effect, and I think I am entitled to say that all the speeches which we have heard from the other side of the House amount to cant and humbug.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Perhaps the hon. Member had better wait until one or two more have spoken from this side.

Mr. BEVAN: I am hoping that when the hon. Member speaks he will be the


exception. I should have thought we would have some indication of how hon. Members on the Conservative benches regard these proposals. I hope that some of them will be true to what they said a few weeks ago and will tell the Government that it is utterly unjust to impose these reductions while the country is waiting for the proposals which everybody says that the Government ought to have brought forward long ago. The emptiness of the benches opposite is evidence that the Minister of Labour was quite right in what he said. I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) to look at an article in which the Minister said, in effect, to the unemployed of the country that, they were sheep and deserved to be treated as sheep. He said, in effect, to the unemployed of the country: "You know that we propose to reduce your benefit. We shall do it by sleight of hand. We are going to do it slowly, and I hope you will not notice it. Nevertheless, our proposal is to reduce 60,000 of you almost at once." Is that wrong or right? The Minister's own White Paper said that he proposed to reduce 60,000 at once, and that he proposed to reduce a number of them over 18 months. The evidence is that the right hon. Gentleman ultimately proposes to make rather a substantial reduction because he proposes to take 18 months to do so.
What does the Minister of Labour say to the unemployed?—That they have not had enough guts effectively to resent his proposal. I expected that from him, of course. The unemployed are now between the devil and the deep blue sea. If the unemployed protest, if they make a row in the country, they are accused by hon. Members of indulging in extra Parliamentary methods of agitation. If, on the other hand, we get no agitation from them, the Minister interprets that as evidence that there is no resentment on the part of the unemployed. A few weeks ago, a, visit was paid to South Wales by the late King. Everybody in the country was astonished by the almost complete absence of demonstration against the Minister of Labour, who, on that occasion, took advantage of the people's attitude towards the then King to protect him. If the Minister of Labour belives that is no resent-

ment in South Wales against his proposals, let him come down there himself without the shelter of the Royal purple. He will see plenty of resentment then.
What are the proposals? I The Minister may say: "What happened a few weeks ago led us to believe that our proposals were satisfactory to you." If ever it happens again that there is a Royal visit to a distressed area what the House of Commons has said to the unemployed is, "You must make as much noise as possible and demonstrate against him, otherwise he will say you are contented." I hope his words will be read in South Wales and properly interpreted. It is true that so far there have been few reductions in the allowances. This Motion is not put on the Paper because of what has happened, but because of what the Government declare they are going to do, and they propose that in the future the needs of a young man of 21 will be assessed at a maximum of 10s. a week. Is there a Member in the House who will declare that in his judgment that is a reasonable assessment of the needs of anyone? Let us have a reply. Is there anyone who proposes to vote against this Motion who will get up and say lie holds the view that 10s. a week at which these Regulations propose to assess the needs of the unemployed, and in fact do assess them in the hon. Member's constituency, is a reasonable assessment?

Mr. MAGNAY: I will answer to my constituents.

Mr. BEVAN: There is not, a Member who dares go before his constituents and say it. The Minister himself will not say it. He has said it in the Regulations, but he will not get up in his place and say that in his judgment a man who has been idle for more than nine months, and may have been idle for five or six years, can be, and ought to be, assessed at 10s. a week. There is not a Member of the House who would say so, but everyone who votes against the Motion will be saying in effect that he believes that is an adequate maintenance for an adult in Great Britain in 1936. I hope hon. Members will not be permitted during the rest of the Debate to speak of the discretionary power of the advisory committees, because that is utterly irrelevant. You have not to con


sider the exceptional cases, the divergencies from the normal which result in different allowances. What you have to answer is, Do you accept that in a normal case 10s. a week is enough? I am tired of hearing Members shelter themselves behind the advisory committees. They deal with exceptional cases, and the officers of the Board will, of course, try to make the Regulations as elastic as possible, but we have to deal with the normal standard rates.
When the Regulations were before the House some time ago, hon. Members defended their support of them on the ground that they gave increases over the then existing scale and that, if they voted against the Regulations, they would be voting against those increases. We declared at the time that the reason why they were put in that difficulty was because of the procedure of the Government in making it impossible to put down Amendments. The Regulations had to be taken as a whole, and Members could not distinguish between those parts of them that gave increases and those that gave reductions. We are giving them the opportunity, because the Motion will preserve the increases where they are given and will not continue the reductions. I assume, from the reasoning that we had on that occasion, that all those who defended the Regulations on that account will vote for this Motion. I am not suggesting that, if it were carried, it would be any other than an instruction to the Government to bring in the necessary legislation. The Motion itself would not have the effect of suspending the Regulations in those respects where they make a reduction in an effective and watertight way. As a matter of fact, the House would be even more pleased to give such legislation a unanimous passage in one evening than other legislation which has been carried in the last few days. The Minister is running away, like his predecessor. It is now regarded in British politics as the acme of courage for a Minister to say that he persists in his intention to persecute the poor. If a Member of the Government stood up and said, "I refuse to go on persecuting the poor any longer," he would not get a medal from the Humane Society but would be jeered at and accused of running away from a job that any decent man ought to be ashamed of doing.
The Regulations go a step further. We are not at the moment suggesting the abolition of the means test, because we desire to confine the Debate to narrow issues which would not endanger the party fidelities of anyone, and they can vote upon the merits of the Motion alone, although we have not abated one tittle of our opposition to the means test in principle. If hon. Members propose to vote against the Motion, not only do they say that 10s. a week is adequate for an adult, but they say that 9s. is enough for a woman of 21. Great Britain is rapidly earning the reputation of having the worst-treated and worst-paid working class in the world. If we go on a little longer, there will be very many countries in the world with a far better-treated working class than we have. Nine shillings a week is a. scandal. I know that hon. Members opposite would not declare that they consider it to be adequate, but they do something more if they vote against the Motion. They declare that 28s. a week is a high enough standard of life for a man who works six days in the pit, because, if he gets more, it is taken away to maintain the idle members of his family. If he earns £2 a week and he has an idle father, 12s. is taken from him in order to maintain the father. Will anyone in any part of the House defend that? Will the Minister of Labour declare that in his judgment 28s. is an adequate reward for six days' work? They have not the guts to say it. They have not the decency to say it, but they are doing it. The decent thing is to say what you are going to do And not hide it behind the intricacies of Parliamentary Regulations.
They go on to declare that, if by an unhappy circumstance a father happens to live in a distressed 'area surrounded by a sea of hopeless unemployment, if he has idle sons or daughters at home he shall be content to go on working as long as they are unemployed, on a wage which is 8s. a week more than he would have if he were unemployed. That is the extent to which the capitalist system has reduced the inducement, to honest labour. I regret very much that the working class are so drilled that they regard even that inducement as sufficient to go on working. Does anyone in any part of the House believe that to be reasonable? The House is not doing itself justice in


discussing this matter with these empty benches. It reflects very seriously upon the attitude of the House towards this very grave problem.

Mr. BERNAYS: What about your own Front Bench?

Mr. BEVAN: The answer is obvious. We want an opportunity of converting you to our Motion. We do not need to be converted. I deeply deplore that Members are not present to hear what is an unanswerable case and try to defend the position they are taking up.
We have discussed the distressed areas in this House on more than one occasion, and I have heard the problem discussed with growing impatience. All I hear are speeches of sympathy, but every piece of concrete legislation that is brought forward is an attack upon the distressed areas. We have had a whole series of legislative proposals in the last three or four years directly aimed at worsening the conditions of the distressed areas. Whenever the Government have the power to do something concrete, it is always against the distressed areas. Whenever they have an opportunity merely to deliver perorations they have a wonderful sympathy for those areas. Most of the people who will be attacked under these Regulations live in the distressed areas. The means test, as my hon. Friend reminds me, took £1,000,000 a year from South Wales, from that part of the country where, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day, unemployment continually grows. It is from the people in these circumstances that this House takes £1,000,000 a year and from whom the Minister of Labour proposes to extract even more sacrifices.
Do hon. Members wonder why, when we speak on this matter, we find it difficult to use the ordinary language of Parliamentary Debate? Let me tell the Minister of Labour this: Do not let him make any mistake at all about the feeling which exists in South Wales and in other parts of the country in regard to this matter. I freely admit that the strategy which the Minister of Labour has adopted is full of cunning. He besieges the distressed areas with all the military strategems that Franco uses in trying to seize Madrid. He approaches his own fellow countrymen

as though they are a foreign enemy. He throws out camouflage. He has a secret service too. All the military apparatus is used by the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the distressed areas in order to accomplish the further dereliction of the distressed areas without paying the price of anti-Parliament and anti-Government demonstration. At the moment he is succeeding.
When these Regulations actually start to do what he proposes to make them do by legislation, when that happens, I assure him the Royal purple will not be wide enough to cover anybody in South Wales. The depressed areas are deeply involved in this problem. Hon. Members would be more worthy of the position they occupy in this House if they would get up and tell the Minister of Labour that further sacrifices are not only unworthy but are an outrage. If this Motion is carried, some of the anomalies will still exist in the sense that some areas will have higher scales and some will have lower scales. That problem can easily be dealt with by the Government in subsequent legislation. I am asking this on behalf of people who are as decent as any people in Great Britain and who have lived under the shadow of this trouble for 10 or 15 years. While other parts of the country can get alleviation from unemployment, that alleviation is denied these people, and the very least we can ask is that the Government should not turn a dagger in a wound which they themselves are unable to heal.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The only hon. Member who has so far spoken and who seems to have viewed the situation with any satisfaction, but with no hope, is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay). In so far as he pinned his faith blindly upon the advice of the local advisory committees, he is doing a great deal more than circumstances warrant him doing. He has to remember that these committees are purely advisory; they have no executive authority. Apart from that there is the significant fact that, if they had really been intended to be a vital part of the scheme under the Act of 1934, they would not have been left unestablished for so many years. They were brought in as a kind of make-weight at the last moment. I am afraid that by this time the bureau


cratic system of the Unemployment Assistance Board has acquired certain habits and has become a regular practice, and it will be very hard for the advisory board seriously to influence that position. I am glad to have been given an opportunity by hon. Members above the Gangway of dealing with this question before we depart for the Christmas holidays. There would be something rather callous if we went away for the Recess without having, at any rate, some kind of discussion and serious consideration of what is, however you may dress it up, a blow which is going to descend upon these poor people. It may be that the blow will not be universal.
The Motion is put into very modest form. It does not seek to raise all the issues that might have been raised, and it does not, in fact, make any comparison between the original Stanley Regulations and those which were brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. Naturally the second Regulations are better. It would have been incredible if, after the disastrous experience of the first Regulations, no improvements had been made. Substantial improvements have been made, but the Motion now before us leaves all those improvements quite unaffected. Hon. Members can take what credit they like with regard to this matter. All they are asked to do is to arrest the blow which is falling, particularly in certain districts, with great force. We have to consider whether, taking a broad view of the condition of our people, any reduction whatever can be justified. I know that you can find hard, and, therefore, selected cases, and can make it appear that at present there is a large amount of money going into a particular household. It may be dangerous to judge the whole system by hard cases. It is equally fallacious to judge it by one or two soft cases. I would much rather take the risk of having no reductions at all, and perhaps having excesses here and there, than make a change which will cause very widespread distress.
We are not discussing the whole question of the means test to-night, but in so far as this Motion, if carried, would make the means test operate in a milder form than it will if the proposals of the Government go on unchecked, the same issues are raised. If there is a breaking

up of homes—as I believe there is—it will be less severe if the Motion is carried than if it is not carried. If there are hon. Members who still imagine that there is no breaking up of homes, I wish they could come to some of the constituencies that are badly affected, and see the sort of cases which are brought up day after day, and not only cases where people are actually leaving their homes. Certainly that is happening in my constituency, because they have adopted a system of refusing benefits to the young people if they do go out. I believe that it is quite illegal, but it is being done. Young people are finding that they are conferring no benefit upon their families or themselves by remaining where they are, and therefore, through economic pressure, they are driven out.
Apart from those cases of involuntary exile, there are cases where the strain remains inside the family. People come to see me, two or three at a time, and very often I am conscious of the underlying resentment, which is not really resentment of the people against one another, but of the situation into which they are forced, and which must, if it grows, make these homes much less happy, united and contented than they would otherwise be. This is a matter of the greatest seriousness. We pride ourselves on our family life in this country, and, therefore, we ought to make sure that it is a reality. I believe that these evils are brought about without any intelligible or logical principle behind them. The system of the household, as it is worked at the present moment, is entirely artificial. It depends upon the persons under a single roof, which is not anything that can be defended in logic. The only point behind it is, that it is easier to operate with the household, than it is with the family.It is a question of pure expediency. I do not believe that it is really expedient. I cannot believe that to continue with such a system, which alienates the essential loyalty of a large number of people to the system under which they have to live, can ultimately be either just or expedient. It is high time that we brought it to an end.
The present Motion, obviously, would be a stop-gap. It has been suggested that it is a standstill arrangement. I do


not think that anybody would claim anything more for it than that. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) pointed out that there is a particular reason for having a stop-gap at the present moment, because we are promised Measures to deal with distressed areas in a short time. It would be a reasonable thing to say, before we make our final settlement with regard to those who will remain out of work, "Let us know the result of the Government's plans to deal with people to be put into work." That is the special reason for putting the Motion into effect at the moment. It would not perhaps do so much. There are large numbers of people who would not be affected by it, but those who would be affected by it would be affected very deeply. Even if the number were only 60,000 people—I think that it will be very much more than that before we have done—it would make some kind of basis of Christmas justice before we go away and would be entirely worthy of the House.

5.30 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: There are a great many hon. Members who represent comparatively prosperous constituencies in the south of England, although in our own particular areas we have our own problems of great distress at certain times of the year. Therefore, I make no apology for intervening in the Debate, because I have the honour to represent one of those seats. If it was not for the good will of the south of England the Government would be unable to gain the support which they are ensured at the present time for any Measures which they may care to bring forward in order to help the north of England. It is not enough stressed that the ratepayers and taxpayers in the south of England are called upon, and will be called upon, to make very real sacrifices in order to help their less fortunate fellow citizens in the north. There has been much talk and a great deal of criticism in this House as regards the Government's intentions in the Special Areas, but it would not be in order for me to go into that subject, except to say, speaking for my own area, and with some knowledge of other areas, that my electors, irrespective of party, are more than willing to face up to any sacrifice which may be demanded of them in order to

help in the solution of this problem, because until the black spots have been got rid of the social conscience of the community, regardless of party, can have no rest.
It seems to me that the Motion and the speeches in support of it are rather like a battle of cannons booming but firing blank ammunition, because at the present time no reductions have taken place and reductions can only take place subject to appeal and to local discretion. There are two things which stand out in the terms of the Motion. First, that if it were accepted the House would be doing something that Parliament has never done before. It would be legalising the uncontrolled distribution of public moneys collected from the taxpayers and the ratepayers without any consideration as to the merits of the particular citizens to whom the moneys were being distributed. That would not be fair to the taxpayers, to those in employment or even to those out of employment who have no resources. There is more in it than was suggested by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. K. Griffith). He said that if there was an isolated case here and there he would prefer to see these have rather more than they ought to have than to see a system which might bring into play reductions. The real fact of importance is that that would be legalising the extravagance of local authorities, which all Governments have endeavoured to put down in the past.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) asked us to look at the wickedness of this Government and to justify if we could 28s. 6d. for an outof-work miner. I would remind him that 28s. 6d., inadequate as it may be, is a greater sum than was supplied by the Labour Government in the years 1929 to 1931. [Interruption.] I repeat that it is more than was provided by the Labour Government in those years. Again, the fact which he stressed, that there is a narrow discrepancy between what the man gets in work and the benefit he gets when he is out of work, can be taken two ways, either as a debating point against the Government or as a tribute to the scales under our social system which still gives a higher standard of life than in any other country to those in work and at the same time is able to give these allowances to those citizens who are out


of work. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) said that whole areas will be affected by these Regulations. The party above the Gangway have condemned the Regulations on the ground that whole areas are going to stiffer. Have they read the words of a respected trade union leader, Mr. Findlay, who, speaking at the miners' conference, said:
The campaign in the Labour movement against the Regulations is handicapped by the knowledge that they will bring benefit not only to many households but also to whole areas.
Those are the words of a member of the Trades Union Congress, speaking to the miners' conference. He said that whole areas are going to benefit, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen also said that whole areas were going to be affected. They are, and because fundamentally these Regulations are sound and fair, and coupled with an active policy which will primarily endeavour to restore employment. We believe that the Regulations are in the best interests of the community as a whole. That is why I sincerely hope the House will reject the Motion.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. RIDLEY: In discussing this subject it is desirable to point out that appeals can be made only in exceptional cases and that discretion remains discretion only when it operates in exceptional cases. Therefore, everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) as to the operation of the Regulations in general cases remains undisproved by what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour). One of the finest characteristics of this House is its ability, when it wishes, to become a House of Commons, to be proud of its supremacy and its authority over the executive, and its ability sometimes to defy a three-line Whip when it thinks that the occasion is justified. I beg the House to regard this as such an occasion. If we pass the Motion not only will the House have the right to be proud of its action but the country will be proud of its ability in a moment like this to do the simple, decent thing.
I am sorry that the Minister of Labour has left the House, because I cannot forbear from saying that the only man in such a, moment who would not be

proud would be the Minister of Labour, whose evident enjoyment of his own complacent satisfaction is one of the least satisfactory features of this House. Why should not the Motion be carried? Despite their persistence the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and other hon. Members have been unable to extract from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary any estimate of the economy which will result from the operation of the new Regulations. We know not whether the economy will be considerable or inconsiderable, whether it will be large or small. If it be a small and inconsiderable economy it becomes a mean economy because it is small and inconsiderable. If the country were hard up and we did not know where to find the next copper to contribute towards battleships, the situation would be different, but when that is clearly not the case I suggest that a small measure of economy would be the measure of its own meanness and cruelty. I suspect that the reticence on the part of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in providing us with an estimate is not due to the fact that the economy will be small but to the fact that the economy will be so large that the Minister is afraid and ashamed to reveal the nature and extent of it.
I ask the House to consider this matter not in terms of economy but in terms of human experience. We are dealing with men and women who have already experienced long unemployment. I do not believe that there is any monopoly of sentiment or sympathy in any quarter of the House, given an equal knowledge of the facts and the circumstances, but may I suggest, with every courtesy, that it is not possible in the very nature of things for hon. Members who represent comfortable constituencies in the south of England to understand this appalling problem in the way that is understood by hon. Members who sit for the distressed areas and who are daily surrounded by a sea of misery? Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will be persuaded by those who have experience and knowledge on the subject. In every industrial area there are, to put it modestly, thousands of men who have experienced prolonged unemployment for two, three and more years, men who have lost or are losing the skill and cunning of their craft, men from


whose eyes has gone the lustre of life, from whose hearts has gone the hope that life can ever become again for them a thing of joy; men who have not only lost in their lives the occasion for happiness, but are rapidly losing the capacity to enjoy it even when the occasion presents itself. Unemployment has exhausted their stamina and has eaten devastatingly into the modest comforts of the home itself. Furniture breaks, crockery cracks, pots and pans disappear with little or no hope of redress available, and if the Motion is not accepted that inability becomes even more a restrictive inability within the terms of the new Regulations. Home life instead of being the sanctified thing it should be becomes an experience of almost intolerable discomfort, physical and mental.
Let me take a suppositious case. John Smith has been unemployed for three years and he has a wife and four children. He is out of work not because he is lazy, intemperate, or generally non-industrious, but because the works have closed down. Because of the scales of a generous local authority he gets benefit of 35s. a week, but the new Regulations will reduce that amount to 32s. I would ask hon. Members opposite, would they like the experience of maintaining in food, clothes and shelter four children for seven days a week on 35s. over a period of years? If the answer is "No," how much less enjoyable and unendurable will be the experience when the amount available is reduced to 32s.? I ask hon. Members to imagine that amount in the hollow of their hands and to think how many of us in this House spend that amount in unuseful purposes without any justification for the expenditure
I ask the House not to resist the appeal made from these benches. The other day I was with a sturdy group of 30 miners at a week-end school. Six of them had not only been unemployed for five years, but they knew that the industry had no further employment for them and that for the rest of their lives they were driftwood in human society. Will the House add to that condition the mental contemplation of the further physical privation which will be imposed by the Regulations if we do not carry the Resolution?

This is almost the last thing that this House will do this week. Let the House do the decent thing. We shall leave the House to-morrow to buy Christmas presents for our families. Let us not further deepen the anxieties of those who will not share with us that joyful experience.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was very caustic about the attendance of hon. Members on this side of the House, but, as a matter of fact, we were nearly all square, because I counted 22 hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House and 21 on this side. It is true that as the hon. Member proceeded with his speech from the fantastic to the impossible four or five hon. Members on this side left the Chamber, but I do not think he can complain about that, because the very moment he had finished his speech he bustled out of the House and has not reappeared. In any event, I do not think that the record of the Labour party in this particular matter is very good. They have nothing upon which to congratulate themselves in their handling of the unemployed problem between the years 1929 and 1931. Indeed, I do not think any Government has much cause to congratulate itself for the way in which it has handled this particular problem.
I have intervened in the Debate only to say that I feel myself bound to vote for the Motion because of the pledge I gave at the last Election that I was in fact, and still am, opposed in principle to the means test as it is at present operating. I do not for a moment believe that we can afford to go on without any means test at all. I do not go quite as far as hon. Members opposite, and there are many hon. Members opposite who will agree with me up to this point, that it is not fair to distribute public money without any regard to the means of the people you are helping. It is not right or just. But the present household means test I have never subscribed to, and it is much better to stick to your convictions. If you put children under the age of 16 years into the household that is a reasonable and fair proposition; but that a young man of 21, who is earning his own living should be handled as is proposed under these Regulations—that his own earnings should be taken into


consideration—is a bad principle from every point of view.
I do not believe that the agitation about nutrition which has been going on in the country is a mere stunt. I think there is a tremendous lot behind it. We have the authority of medical and scientific opinion which is beyond reproach that about 20 per cent. of our population are undernourished at the present time, and if proof is required we find it in the figures of rejections for recruiting, particularly in the West of Scotland. I believe that children and nursing mothers in the distressed areas are not at the present moment adequately nourished, and I think the cost of that on our disease bill is very great. It is impossible to give figures. Everything is in the nature of speculation, but I wonder how much of the £20,000,000 that we spend on disease alone in Scotland is due to the fact that in their youth so many of our young men and young women were undernourished and badly fed.
There is no doubt that the blow mentioned by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) is about to fall on some of the unemployed. It is going to fall mainly in the distressed areas, in the most distressed areas, where there has been continuous unemployment for the last few years. We have asked the Government to introduce legislation to deal with this particular problem and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to do so by next May. But in the very nature of things that legislation must be long-term legislation. Some of us blame the Government for a great deal of delay and procrastination in the matter of bringing forward proposals to alleviate the conditions in the distressed areas, but whether that is true, whether it is a fair complaint or not, the fact remains that nothing effective can possibly be done for the distressed areas for another year at least—it may be much longer.
What I understand the Motion asks is that during that unstated period there should be no further penalties imposed upon the unemployed in this country. That is a reasonable request. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) was very sanguine about the operation of these new Regulations. I hope that he is right, but I agree with the hon. Mem-

ber for Middlesbrough West in saying that we ought not to count too much on these advisory committees. They are not executive committees. They are, by their name, advisory committees, and when we receive assurances from the Minister of Labour some of us cannot forget the bitter experience of the last occasion when these Regulations were introduced. I was assured privately and publicly by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Regulations were going to be a milestone in the social history of this country, and were going to bring such benefits to the unemployed as were but dimly realised. We were all led up the garden path in breathless expectation of the benefits which were going to be conferred on the unemployed. We know what happened, and we cannot be quite sure that everything is going to be all right this time. I do not think that the Minister himself can be quite certain.
There is another reason for supporting the Motion, and this is the particular question I want to put to the Government. What is the point from the national point of view of reducing the purchasing power of the people in these districts by a penny? This country is going through a phase of unparalleled prosperity, and one of the features of the present boom which causes a little uneasiness is the disparity between the prosperity of one district and another, one group of workers and another, and one industry and another. It seems to me that these Regulations, in so far as they inflict cuts upon the allowances, are going to deliver a blow—it may not be a very heavy blow—at four or five areas in this country, where, so far from delivering a blow, we want to do everything in our power to lift them up. I am sure that the prosperous areas in the South would not grudge a little extra to these areas, even if it were a little too much. But what is the point of reducing by one half-penny the purchasing power of anybody in a distressed area at the present time when you have got no constructive schemes to alleviate the conditions there? I say that you have no right to reduce the purchasing power of these people until you have these constructive schemes. It is false economy. I know of no other way of alleviating avoidable human suffering and doing more good to national economy than by


putting a little more cash directly into these distressed areas. There is no other way in which you can do such an amount of good with so little annual expenditure than by refusing to make any cut whatever for the next 12 months. I think the country can afford it, and if the Government were to make this gesture it would do more good than anything else at the moment, and at less cost. I hope the Government will consider it in that light.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am glad that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), although he has resigned from the popular front, has at least popular ideas which affect the masses of the people of this country. Any hon. Member with an open mind, with sympathy and understanding, will agree that his attitude in supporting the Motion is a testimony to his Parliamentary activity in the House which will be endorsed in the country. I cannot agree with the optimism of the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), who hoped that hon. Members opposite would disregard a three-lined Whip and go into the Lobby in support of the Motion. My short experience in this House is that a three-lined Whip is a sort of blackmailing policy applied to hon. Members of various political parties. I confess that I become more and more reluctant as time goes on to feel enthusiastic about taking part in Debates in this House and making appeals to the Minister of Labour or to any other Minister. I have said before that in my opinion Parliament is a Victorian moth-eaten assembly. We do not come to this House to submit our points, to put forward evidence and cases of injustice. The Government do not listen to these appeals, weigh up the evidence in order to find what is best for the mass of the workers of the country and then declare that the overwhelming evidence is in favour of the attitude suggested by hon. Members opposite. Instead we get the old stereotype procedure: the Opposition Member makes his appeal, the Minister sits on the Government Bench taking a number of notes in order to score debating points, and then gets up at the end of the Debate and says that although the Government are not doing this or that, the Opposition when they were in office were as bad or worse. The bad action of a, previous Government becomes the defence of the present Government.

I do not accept that as being the kind of Parliamentary activity which is desired by the masses of the people.
We have on the Front Bench and in the Cabinet a number of old worn-out veterans who are continually threatening to resign if they do not get their way on this and that. They go on like a lot of happy old women complaining about their health and the onerous duties that are put upon them. We are all willing to relieve them of their duties. We should be glad to do so. It is a case of "We do not want to lose you, but we think you ought to go." That is the sort of thing which is supposed to impress the world that we have a democratic Parliamentary Government. It is humbug of a first-class kind. On local public bodies I find that no matter how much you may disagree with other members, they are in attendance and listen to your arguments. On many occsaions even the most ardent Tory will concede some act of social justice to the poor because you have convinced him. But that is not the case in this House, and nobody except the most ardent Parliamentary hypocrite would attempt to make the country believe that it does take place here. It often happens that a few hon. Members come into the House and listen to the Debate, and I do not complain if they move in and out, as everybody is bound to do. When the vote is being taken, however, hundreds roll up and never attempt in any way to find out what the Debate was about, or what arguments were used, but simply give their vote in the Lobby. I have heard hon. Members coming out of the Division Lobbies say, "What was the vote about?" At the Lobbies, the Whip stands at the door and says, "There is your Lobby," and the hon. Member walks in. It is loyalty to a class, loyalty to a party, loyalty to a Prime Minister or a Cabinet—that is the loyalty in this House.
The Motion that has been moved by the Opposition is a modest request at the end of the year 1936. It says, in effect, that the conditions of those with whom we are now concerned should not be worsened. It asks for a postponement. The Minister of Labour, the little bethel preacher who goes round to churches on Sunday telling people of the works and Word of God, comes along and carries out this act against the poor of the coun-


try, the lowest of the low. The Minister of Labour is the man who said publicly of Miss Margaret Bondfield—in connection with the Blanesburgh Report—that he would resign from public life rather than sign that document. He is doing a worse thing to-day, for he is defending a policy that is more cunning and cruel in its application even than that proposed at that time. He is the man who has moved from £8 per week to about £40 a week in order to legislate against the poor of the country. The unemployed are being driven down stage by stage and demoralised by the application of the means test and the various Acts that have been applied. Then the Minister of Labour brings forward more crushing legislation against the poor than has ever been brought forward before. I have never raised my voice in this House concerning the Standstill Order, for I knew that once the Standstill Order came to an end, the legislation proposed would worsen the conditions of the workers to a greater extent than has been the case under that Order.
Is the Minister of Labour going to plead that the country cannot afford to give those extra few millions to the poor each year? Surely that plea cannot he made by a Government which proposes to spend £300,000,000, £400,000,000 or £500,000,000 on armaments. Surely they cannot put forward the plea that they cannot find the money, or that for the defence of this country it is essential that the poor should be crushed down to lower levels than those which exist at present. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen referred to the tremendous amount of money that is being spent on certain social and health services, but I believe it would be good business, instead of trying to rescue persons who are in ill-health, to try to prevent people getting into a state of ill-health.
I have been to the Mearnskirk sanatorium outside Glasgow, and seen tubercular children. They came from the industrial part of Glasgow, and their parents were unemployed or on the means test. It costs 70s. a week to maintain a child in that institution, but the 70s.-a-week child is there because he or she was previously a 2s.-a-week child. By the standards which the Government have adopted, they penalise these child-

ren and drive them into a tubercular state because of inadequate sunshine and lack of pure air and good food. Then there is lavished on them all possible skill and human anxiety; they are given a good environment of fresh air, good food, plenty of milk, nourishment and medicine. If the children recover, they are sent back into the environment where their health was destroyed, with the reaction that they become victims to a greater extent and more surely than was the case when they lived in the unhealthy environment previously. That is the work of men who pride themselves, as does the Minister of Labour, not only on being Christians but good business men, and from both angles they do not fill the bill.
Recently I have been in Spain. I saw there the bodies of children that had been blown by bombs from one side of the street to the other and had had their heads removed from their bodies. That act was brutal, cruel and deadly, but death was swift or sudden. The death that is being dealt out to millions of children in this country is like putting them into a compartment where life is slowly crushed out of their bodies. The public conscience is roused by the sudden and sensational death which Franco causes, but that conscience is not roused to the same extent by the slow death caused by the National Government, the Minister of Labour and the capitalist system of society. Under these Regulations, social reforms that are attempted in many directions will be made inapplicable. For example, the Kilsyth Council, which is composed of a fairly good type of man, gives houses at 3s. 9d. a week, but the Minister of Labour comes along and says, "You may give the people social reforms, lower rents, but I am going to take those reforms from them and make them pay the ordinary standard of rent by reducing the standards which they get in a progressive, constitutional way in this country." You take from a man with £280 in the bank 11s. a week, and reduce the 24s. to 13s. for man and wife. We are told by hon. Members opposite that that is all right. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) boasted of how he had managed to scrape through at the last General Election and how the people had backed the means test. That is humbug and nonsense.

Mr. MAGNAY: If the hon. Member will excuse me, I never said I scraped through—I had a majority of 3,000.

Mr. McGOVERN: That is scraping through; if 1,500 votes had gone the other way it would have made all the difference. I do not raise the matter from that point of view, but from the point of view of endorsement of the means test. It is not true that the means test was endorsed in the hon. Member's constituency. I am satisfied that if there were an opportunity for me to take a plebiscite on the means test in that constituency, I would get an endorsement of the rejection of the means test in its entirety. There is no opportunity under Parliamentary government for getting the mind of the people. At election times there are all sorts of cries. The building of a Cunarder returns an hon. Member. It may be a question of—[An HoN. MEMBER: "Battleships."] Yes, battleships. It may be Abyssinia; it may be people looking for work on armaments, and it may be the personality of the individual in many cases. If there were an opportunity of taking a plebiscite on the means test, the means test would surely go.
Of the 15,000 people who voted against me at the last Election, I am satisfied that I could poll more than half of their votes if it were a simple case for or against the means test; but all sorts of issues are involved at election time. We know that if the issue of the late Monarch had been put to the country, he would have beaten the Cabinet; the Cabinet would have gone, the Prime Minister would have gone, but the man would have remained. If there is to be in this country a real struggle on behalf of the working class, let it come from those people who are to-day jabbing and kicking in high places. Let the bishops deal with the means test and not mind Mrs. Simpson; let them deal with the evil of unemployment instead of kicking a man when he is down; let them play the manly game as discovered and played in this country. Instead of looking on high, let them look below, and find the starving multitude in the ranks of those who suffer from the means test and unemployment. Let them go into the pulpits and speak over the wireless, and try to rouse the sympathies and

conscience of the nation against the social injustices and wrongs from which the common people suffer.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will attempt to-night to defend the indefensible; he, the man with £40 a week, will strike a blow at the man with 10s. a week, the man who has to go round apologising for his very existence, who has not a decent suit of clothes, who does not have decent food, who has to appeal to his mother on the old age pension for a copper with which to buy tobacco or a newspaper. That is the state of society that the Minister of Labour defends; those are the Regulations he defends. Those who go into the Lobby for the means test are doing something which is meaner than taking a penny out of a blind man's tin. The Minister of Labour may pat himself on the back and go into pulpits, but I say he ought to stop going into them, tear up his Prayer Book and say he has no further use for it, because he has gone over to Mammon and left the service of the common people.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. SHINWELL: I have two regrets about this Debate. The first is that, because of its postponement, insufficient time has been allotted to us to enable many of my hon. Friends to participate, and the second is that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has not yet seen fit to occupy our attention. I think it would have served the convenience of hon. Members if he had spoken earlier in the Debate, for he might then have assisted in clearing up much of the confusion that appears to exist in the minds of hon. Members. For example, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) expressed doubts as to whether reductions were likely to take effect—I hope I do not misrepresent him in that statement—whereas the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) seemed to have no doubts whatever concerning future reductions. It seems to me that if doubts exist in the minds of hon. Members as to whether reductions are in contemplation, the only person who can clear away the confusion and remove the doubts is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. Therefore, I venture to ask him this question: Is it the intention of the Unemployment Assistance Board to put any reductions, into effect in the near


future? Further, have any reductions operated up to now and if so to what extent? Finally will the reductions take effect only in particular areas or over the whole country? It is extremely important that we should be furnished with full information on these points.
The situation has changed considerably since our last Debate on the Unemployment Assistance Regulations. There has been, let us frankly admit it, a change for the better in the industrial position of the country. It is said, no doubt with truth, that unemployment has diminished and the figures of unemployment seem to bear out that statement. If that be so, then, clearly the cost of unemployment assistance must have been correspondingly reduced and the financial burden upon the Exchequer in this respect must be less serious than it was several months ago. In those circumstances, on the assumption that I am stating the position correctly, surely the Government, with this rising tide of industrial improvement, with this diminished unemployment and reduced cost, can afford to be more generous. In situations of crisis, in periods of economic depression, one could understand the attitude of the National Government. It is proper to conserve our resources in those circumstances. But the situation to-day is different from what it was in 1931, or even several months ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I welcome those approving cheers because they fortify my argument.
It does not matter who may be responsible for the improvement. It may be a world change, or Government legislation, or tariff policy, or armaments production. Have it any way you please, but the fact remains that there is an improvement and if there is a substantial improvement, with the results which such an improvement connotes, then the Government's case for these Regulations, is certainly not as well-founded as it once was. There is another factor in the situation which fortifies the argument of my hon. Friends. The cost-of-living figure has gone up by five points since October, 1935, and has risen by three points since October of this year. From the standpoint of a working-class family and particularly an unemployed man's family, that is a grave matter indeed. If conditions had remained the same in respect

of retail costs, the Government might have replied that no case could be made out for the view which we are putting forward. In view, however, of the increase in the cost-of-living figure that has manifested itself during those months, the burden upon the households of the unemployed is graver than ever. Surely this is not an occasion for enforcing these reductions.
I venture to submit a further consideration which arises from the general industrial improvement in the country, and what is described in Government quarters as prosperity. I am not going to dispute the contention of hon. Members opposite in that respect. Undoubtedly many working people are sharing in that prosperity. They are in work, and being in work are in receipt of wages. Let it be noted how different is the position of the wage-earner from that of the unemployed person in relation to this matter. Wages do fluctuate. They may go down but in times of industrial improvement they may go up and that is a decided advantage to the wage-earner. There are however no fluctuations of an upward kind to bring any advantage to the unemployed man and his family. Why should the unemployed and their families not share in the general prosperity? Are they not as much entitled to their share of it as those who are fortunate enough to be in employment? It is only an accident that one is working and the other is not. It may be a geographical accident or due to some other cause, but in any case it is admitted that it is not the fault of the unemployment man that he is out of work, and it is not to the credit of the man in a job that he is receiving work and wages. It is the contention of the Government's supporters that we are witnessing a wave of prosperity the end of which we cannot foresee. It may last they say over many years—who can tell? Why then ask the unemployed, who are undoubtedly going to remain unemployed for a long time to come in the areas which are regarded as specially affected, to go on bearing this undue and unnecessary burden. I submit that they ought not to be excluded from whatever benefits are to be derived from the general industrial improvement in the country.
I ask hon. Members opposite to dismiss from their minds all irrelevant considera-


tions. This is not a suitable occasion for discussing the means test or even the household means test, or the question of Parliamentary procedure, or even the failings of the last Labour Government. We are concerned here with a simple Motion. It refers to the appalling distress prevailing in many parts of the country. Is the existence of that distress denied in any quarter of the House? Of course not. The facts are indisputable and if the facts are admitted as they are, beyond a peradventure, are we not then entitled to ask what is to be done in those circumstances? What is the Government's remedy? It was stated by the right hon. Gentleman himself—and I am prepared to accept him as my authority on this point—when we were discussing the problem of the Special Areas that there were exceptional difficulties in the way of a speedy solution of the problems which beset those areas. I accept that view and I can furnish an example. I merely mention this as an illustration. Demands have been made for the installation of coal-oil plants in some of these areas. Everybody knows that even if the Government accepted that proposition it would take many months, probably some years, before those plants could be installed and put into operation.
The same remark applies to trading estates. It takes time to find sites and to induce traders to make their applications. Finance has to be found and customers have to be sought. It is not an easy process, nor is it one that can be carried out as speedily as some hon. Members have suggested. These things take time and whatever proposals may come before this House in connection with the Special Areas, and whatever the Government may be ready to do—and I wish they were more ready than they appear to be—it must be a considerable time before any schemes of a substantial nature can take effect. Then why not do as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has suggested and suspend these reductions until we see the effect of the Government's schemes. It may be of course that the Government have no schemes in contemplation. May I put it another way? It may be that they have no substantial schemes in contemplation. If that be so, if the Government are content with the normal improvement in trade accompanied by armaments produc-

tion, and apart from that are merely hoping for the best, then clearly they are not entitled to take advantage of the unemployed and their families in the way that is proposed.
Several arguments have been advanced against the Motion, and I wish to deal for a few minutes with those of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour). He said that if we were to accept this Motion it would legalise the uncontrolled distribution of public money. That sounds very formidable, but it is mere extravagance of language. Does the hon. and gallant Member not see that this Motion simply asks that the reductions should be suspended for the time being? Does he not realise that in that case the control of the distribution of the money would still be vested in the Unemployment Assistance Board. There would be no uncontrolled distribution but there would be controlled distribution of more money and that is the difference between the hon. and gallant Member and hon. Members on these benches. Therefore I say, in the most kindly fashion, that it was a mere extravagance of language. But there was something rather worse than that. He said that this would mean legalising extravagance on the part of local authorities. But the local authorities have nothing to do with it at all. It is a matter entirely for the Unemployment Assistance Board. The hon. and gallant Member has not understood this matter correctly, and I will put it no higher than that.

Mr. MAGNAY: Is the hon. Member in favour of a sliding scale, with a minimum standard, of course, according to the cost of living in these cases?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am certainly not, for this reason, that it would not be a practical proposition. I do not think it would be possible for the Minister to introduce legislation providing for public assistance payments which fluctuated in accordance with the cost of living. I used the reference to the increase in the cost of living in order to show that, accompanied by other factors, there is a case for suspension of the reductions in the meantime.

Captain BALFOUR: Surely, when the second appointed day takes place, if there were no reductions, the scales of public assistance in force at the par-


ticular time would be stabilised, and therefore the extravagance of certain local authorities would be stabilised and legalised.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is misinformed, or he must be aware that when we were discussing the general question on a previous occasion, the argument centred to a very large extent around South Wales, where the hon. and gallant Member's argument cannot possibly apply. What is the argument against our Motion? First of all, the country cannot afford it. Of course, that is nonsense, and nobody really believes it. I am satisfied that no hon. Member opposite, representing whatever constituency, would go to his division and say that the country cannot afford to suspend these reductions. The country can afford it, and it would be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman could furnish us with information as to the cost of these contemplated reductions. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has that information himself. He may furnish an approximate estimate, but we know what approximate estimates are in these matters.
There is another argument used against our Motion, and I rather detected it in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet. I have heard it before over and over again, and I have always been amused by it, but I will deal with it now because some hon. Members regard it as rather substantial. It is that if the Regulations contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman, which are now the law of the land, do not operate, some districts will be better treated than others; for example, that in South Wales, because of its previous history in this respect, if no reductions occurred, they would be rather better off in some particulars, relatively speaking, than in some other parts of the country where the commissioners were operating. Why worry about that? Are there no differences of income in this House? That does not seem to perturb the minds of hon. Members, and we get on very well in spite of the differentiations. Are there no differences in the country in wage rates in the mining industry and in every other industry? You do not find workers

entering into civil war because some have a little more than others, and are hon. Members seriously suggesting that there would be a tremendous uprising of indignation on the part of some districts if it was discovered that other districts had a little more than they had—perhaps a shilling? Of course not, and, if I may say so, that is not only an irrelevant argument, but it is an argument that is simply extracted from the depths of one's imagination in order best to fortify a poor case.
We might have discussed with advantage on this occasion the effect of the means test and the household means test on the condition of the people in South Wales, Durham, Cumberland and certain parts of Scotland, particularly at this time, but this is a simple issue. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot accept this Motion. I have a shrewd suspicion—it is not more than that—that the Unemployment Assistance Board, for some reason or other, do not intend to enforce drastic reductions in the near future. I shall be interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about that. I do not say that merely to show that I have got knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman does not possess or that other hon. Members do not possess. I say it because, if it is true, there must be a reason for it. What can be the reason that possesses the Unemployment Assistance Board, if it be true, in not enforcing drastic reductions in the near future? Can it be the approach of Christmas? That can hardly be the reason. I cannot believe that this body would trouble itself unduly with considerations of that kind, and there must be some other reason. Is it that they fear the economic and social effects of the enforcement of these Regulations in certain areas?
I set aside all considerations about the personal effects, about the attacks on the right hon. Gentleman. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is there because he has been made a member of the Government, and he has to bear his burden. It is no use complaining about that or putting the whole of the responsibility upon the right hon. Gentleman, because he could resign, but we very seldom hear of Cabinet Ministers resigning, and I do not expect him to do it any more than Cabinet Ministers in a Labour


Government did it. The responsibility is the responsibility of the Government, and, therefore, all that we are concerned about is this: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to forego these reductions for the time being, until his schemes have got going and are well established, until there is some hope of employment for the people in these areas, until he has an alternative, a substantial and industrial alternative, to offer? Is he prepared to accept this Motion? I hope that, in spite of all that has been said, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something that will raise the hopes of the people who are so tragically affected in these depressed areas of the country. It is not the right thing—I put it no higher than that—to allow this condition of things to go on. If the country can come to the assistance of these people, if it can ameliorate their sufferings by a jot or tittle—a shilling, it may be, or even 6d., and in some cases it may be more—it ought to be done. Bring them relief, give them hope, tell them of your schemes, tell them about the gallant intentions of the Government, but in the meantime give them what you can. I think you ought to be giving them more than you are giving them, but at all events, with the small amounts which they are receiving, do not make the situation any worse than it is. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will turn a sympathetic ear to the submissions that have been made to him this afternoon

6.41 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am sorry I did not meet the convenience of certain hon. Members by rising earlier, but I have twice intervened earlier in Debates of this character to serve the convenience of the House, and twice objection has been strongly taken by the very Members who have been asking for me to intervene earlier on this occasion, and I can only say that this is another illustration of the fact, well known to all who have been Members of the House for a long time, that no Minister of Labour, in any Government, of any party, is ever right and that every Minister of Labour, in every Government, of every party, is always open to personal attack. About that I will not say more than that there are some hon. Members, who take that

form of Debate, who fail to realise that the very way in which they address their language is a self-revelation and is so judged by the House that hears them make statements in personal terms of the kind which we have heard this afternoon, and I leave it there.
This Motion is a very interesting one, especially when the House reflects on the speeches that have been made in support of it. It is in itself, in its own, form, as the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) rightly says, narrow. It does not raise the big issues that have really formed the substance of most of the speeches that have been delivered to-day. It is not only, however, a demand, as the hon. Member for Seaham says, that such reductions as may fall to take place under the present Regulations should not take place, but it is also, by implication, an admission that the new Regulations are of great importance to thousands of unemployed people. No one would have gathered that from the speeches delivered from opposite to-day, any more than, when we get phrases coined for that purpose about persecuting the poor, anyone would gather that the Minister of Labour in this Government, on this side, is responsible with regard to payments to unemployed persons through the Employment Exchanges, in the year 1935, for more than £80,000,000, and in this present year nearly £80,000,000, of which nearly £40,000,000 a year is paid on the assistance side. More than that, nobody would have gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who always puts his case with candour, earnestness, and moderation, that even in South Wales, that very hard-hit area, during this last 12 months the Exchanges have paid out in benefit and assistance £8,000,000 in that area alone. [Interruption.] I have listened without comment, and I think I may be entitled to reply without comment, because if debate means anything, it means that the subject to be debated is to be put in proper perspective. I should protest strongly against the idea that the administration either of public assistance or of benefit can be described with any accuracy in the language that has been used by two or three speakers in the Debate to-day.
Let us come to the issue. The issue is that the new Regulations are being put into operation and the demand from the


benches opposite is that the increases only should take effect. The hon. Member for Aberdare made—what was unusual for him—an inaccurate statement. He said that this is now going to take money away from those who come off benefit and that single persons coming off benefit will drop from 17s. to 10s. That is not so. There is no distinction under the new Regulations between the new case and the old. If the hon. Member will make inquiries in Aberdare he will find that no such case has happened.

Mr. BEVAN: What is the meaning of that statement? It is utter nonsense.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member for Aberdare knows to what I am referring, and so do other hon. Members who listened to him.

Mr. MAINWARING: Explain it before you go any further.

Mr. BROWN: I will explain it in my own time.

Mr. G. HALL: I think that it is necessary to elucidate that point a little. Do I understand that all persons now passing out from statutory benefit under the Unemployment Assistance Board will not suffer any reduction and that they will be treated in the same way as those persons who have been under the board for some considerable time? Does it mean that if a single man is now receiving 17s. statutory benefit he will not be cut, and that within the period of four or five months he will be subject to the recommendation of the advisory committee his extra 7s. will not be liquidated?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member has stated what is the case. There is no distinction drawn, as he said in his speech there was, between those now coming off benefit who have not been under the Board and those who have for some months been under the Board. Later on when reductions are made to single persons in an area their treatment will be equal. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will only do me the honour of listening to what I am saying, they will find that I am stating what is the truth. I was anxious that the House should not be under a misapprehension and take from the hon. Member's statement what is not the fact. Let us come to the situation. I have left

the House under no illusion at all. The documents presented by the Government are quite plain and the Government intend to carry out what they said in July they would, in the letter and the spirit, as, indeed, does the Unemployment Assistance Board. There is no Member of the House who applies his mind to the documents who can be under any misapprehension as to what the intention of the Government was. It is an illustration of the difficulties that arise in dealing with this subject that when there are gains we never hear about them, but if there is a single case of reduction it is published from the housetops. A true understanding of the problem means that both sides of the balance-sheet should be weighed, and not one side only. Therefore, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that this Motion is drawn in such a way as to avoid a frank admission by hon. Members opposite of the fact that this very week there is more money going to South Wales, for instance, under the Unemployment Assistance Board than there was last week and the week before that.

Mr. BEVAN: All we ask is that you should continue that.

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will allow me to make my statement in my own way—and the House knows that I shall make it in my own way—I am pointing out that the House must proceed from the fact that this Motion is by implication a tribute to the new Regulations. It is, secondly, a demand that there should be a standstill. The hon. Member for Seaham summed up the questions that have been asked in the Debate, and they were these—Have any reductions operated up to now, and to what extent? Is it the intention of the Board to put any reductions into effect in the near future? Will reductions take effect in particular areas or over the whole country? These questions are really fundamental to a discussion of what is happening now, and I will answer them. The Regulations came into force on the 16th November and the process of reviewing the cases is nearing completion. Large numbers of persons have received notices that their allowances will be increased, while no applicant has received a notice that his allowance will be decreased as the result of the new Regulations. The new Regulations, as this Motion really admits by implication,


are a considerable improvement on the old Regulations which they superseded. Their effect will be to remove some of the inconsistencies and unequal treatment which obtained under the standstill arrangement.

Mr. BEVAN: Are there going to be no reductions? Is that what you are conveying to the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already made his speech, and he should listen to the Minister's reply.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that not a single reduction has been made since the new Regulations and that no unemployed man had been notified that he was going to be reduced. I have sent the right hon. Gentleman the case of a single man who, because he left home and because the Board alleged, without any justification, that there was collusion, has been completely cut off. Is not that one case at least?

Mr. BROWN: That is not due to the new Regulations. It would have taken place under the old Regulations, as in similar circumstances it has taken place under public assistance practice. I am pointing out that no person has, because of the new Regulations, received a notice of reduction. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) will act according to Parliamentary tradition and give me the chance of making one point at a time, he will find that I will not shirk the issue. Let me point out what the situation is at the moment. The House will remember that we forecast that the first review of cases would probably take five weeks and that, comparing the situation as it was before the new Regulations with our calculations on the basis of the new Regulations, we came to the conclusion that there would be about 200,000 increases on the basis of 620,000 cases. On the basis of a review of 612,000 cases, we have found that that estimate was rather on the cautious side and that we are likely to have more than one-third of the cases getting increases. That explains why there has been a silence on the part of hon. Members opposite because they know that in every area some of their constituents have benefited.
The next question of the hon. Member for Seaham was whether any reductions are to take place in the near future. The answer is, "Yes." We made it perfectly plain to the House in the White Paper what the process was to be. Let me tell the House what the process of administration has been up to the moment. There have been set up 126 advisory committees, and I think it is agreed by universal consent that they are very able and representative bodies. These committees were first asked by the Board to consider the situation in their neighbourhoods with regard to the review of cases and the basic calculations and to make recommendations about the new rent rule for their own areas. The Board have accepted the recommendations with regard to the rent rule of 125 committees. In only one case have they made a variation because two similar areas on either side of the committee in that case had a practice which the Board have adopted. These recommendations are being worked out now in the review of cases.
The House is entitled to know what is likely to happen in the near future. I would point out to the hon. Members for Aberdare and Seaham that the gradual process has nothing to do with scheming or fear. It was adopted, as I told the House when I introduced the Regulations, for one reason only. It is that where reductions fell to be made because excess payments not needed were being made, they should be made gradually in order to avoid hardship to those very persons for whom hon. Members plead. There was no sinister motive. It was done because it was understood that the quick application of the original Regulations caused hardship to those affected. The answer to the hon. Member for Seaham is that the Unemployment Assistance Board as a first step have asked local advisory committees to give advice in two classes of cases, which number 8,000 in all.
The first class are those in which there are high earnings, and the second are those in which there are high household incomes. The Board have received advice from 100 of the 126 Advisory Committees. They find no difficulty in carrying out the Board's suggestions about the treatment of these two classes. The first class of case, that where the applicant is earning substantially more than the


amount of his need assessed under the Regulations. If a man's earnings are less than 25s. there will be no reduction from his standstill allowance. If his earnings are between 25s. and 60s. there will be deducted only the amount by which his earnings exceed twice the amount of the allowance. Thus if a man's allowance is 26s. and he earns anything up to 52s. a week, he will continue to receive the payment which would have been made to him under the standstill. I think that if hon. Members will read this in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, they will agree that it is a very fair rule.
The second class of case is limited to a number of cases of applicants living in households with substantial resources, and consisting mainly of the earnings of husband or wife of applicant, or sons or daughters without dependants of their own. The Board have been at pains to ensure that this group shall be strictly limited in the following way. They have told the committees that all households in which more than half of the resources consist of some form of income other than earnings, shall be excluded altogether, as also will be households where the principle resources consist of the earnings of sisters of the applicant, or a married son, or of a more distant relative. Applicants with earning brothers and sisters will be included only if their fathers are earning substantial wages. The Board have suggested to the Advisory Committees that in the class of case to be affected the payment made should not exceed by more than 15s. or 20s. the amount of the applicant's needs as calculated on the Regulations standard. With regard to the future—

Mr. SHINWELL: It is quite impossible to appreciate the substance of these details. They seem to me to be something quite apart from the Regulations. That is a matter for future consideration, but may I ask him about these 8,000 cases to which he referred? Could he give any indication of their geographical distribution?

Mr. BROWN: No, I could not give that. I have done my best to give a picture as far as I could give it until we have got full advice from the 126 committees. Where action is taken for a reduction a fortnight's notice must be given to each applicant.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Under which Regulation are these going to be put into operation?

Mr. BROWN: These are under the Regulations. This is the process of transferring the old system to the new. Whether it be single persons or any others, the procedure will be that the Board will ask the advisory committees, when a full examination has been made, to give their advice. That is why in the 126 different districts, until the final analysis is made, I am able to tell the House what the increases will be, but I cannot give the House any information as to what the reductions are likely to be. The analysis made and given to the House in July with regard to increases seems to show that the examination we had of this problem, careful, detailed, not merely theoretical in London, but in the districts concerned, shows that the real hardships which were felt under the original Regulations have been removed and the new Regulations are, as we said in July, a great improvement over the old.
I am fortified in this opinion because the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) has put questions to me about statements made by the marchers. He asked what consideration had I given to representations that were made to me through Members as the result of my request that they would bring up such representations to me through their local Member. I can tell him and the House that apart from the individual cases mentioned by the individual marchers, to which we have given consideration and which I felt at first hearing were based on a good deal of misunderstanding, I have received only one case from a Member. That was an interesting case. It was put to me by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor). It concerned Councillor Elliot of Blyth. Perhaps I had better give the House the facts, because it is an instance of the way in which public feeling is aroused in the absence of the full facts. This was a statement made by the Member on behalf of Councillor Elliot:
Son of Mrs. M. J. Elliot, a widow since 1908. Went to work at 12 to help keep mother and sisters. Became unemployed in 1928, being main support of mother aged 73 and an invalid. Was in receipt of 26s. in 1932, reduced to 17s. under the Means Test. Raised to £l. by Public Assistance Committee previous to the standstill. Under the new Regulations, Mr. Elliot re-


ceived information from the Unemployment Assistance Board that this would be reduced to 7s. 6d. The reason for the proposed reduction was because my sister and her husband, who lies on a sick-bed with a tubercular spine, pay half the rent, 5s.
There is 4s. a week from the lodger. who has lived with us for 27 years.
That statement aroused a good deal of feeling. The facts are that the household consists of a man and his mother, w ho is in receipt of 10s. old age pension. The rent is 9s. 6d. The net rent is treated as 1s. 6d. because the brother-in-law and the lodger are treated as separate tenants. Mr. Elliot has been receiving an allowance of 20s., assessed by way of transitional payments, and on reassessment his allowance has been maintained at this figure. The brother-in-law has 9s. from National Health Insurance and 21s. a week outdoor relief. The lodger is a commission agent's clerk. He works in the summer and lives on his savings in the winter. He pays 4s. a week for his room, but takes all his meals out. I am assured by the Board that there is no foundation for Councillor Elliot's statement that he was ever informed that his allowance under the new Regulations would be 7s. 6d. I am sure that that case will give the House to understand that it should not take in haste statements made ex parte on platforms or anywhere else, statements made about individual cases.

Mr. WHITELEY: That is no answer to my case. My case concerns the question of the consideration of earnings and the question of interest received on investments. I hope sometime to get the opportunity to show the House that there is no justification for the way this matter is operated under the means test.

Mr. BROWN: Any Member with experience of this will know that the present earnings rule will bear favourable comparison with any earnings rule of any public assistance authority to be found up and down the country. When hon. Members opposite talk as they have talked with great heat about this matter, perhaps I may be allowed to put one or two other facts before the House about the amount of payments per person on an average that have been made. In November, 1931, the average weekly payment to applicants receiving assistance was 19s. Since then it has been steadily rising. In April of 1935 it was 22s. 11d.; in January, 1936, it had risen to 23s. 7d.

On the 1st November, 1936, it was 23s. 10d. On the 21st November, after the first week—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will only listen they will get the facts. On 21st November, 1936, after one week's survey of about rather over one-quarter of the new cases, it had risen to 24s. 1d. That is the average payment made per applicant receiving assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Per case."] I said per applicant. [HON. MEMBERS: "You said per person."] I took very good care to read it out exactly. What I said was that since 1931 the average weekly payment to applicants receiving assistance has been steadily rising, although it may be disagreeable to hon. Members opposite [Interruption.]

Mr. McGOVERN: It is the lowest thing I have heard in this House.

Mr. G. HALL: Is it not a fact that at the date which the Minister gave, November, 1931, the 10 per cent. cut operated, and could he give us the figures of the number of single applicants, which must have an effect on the average?

Mr. BROWN: I could not give that for this reason, because you cannot do, as hon. Members opposite often wish to do, segregate one element in this problem, for there are a dozen factors which operate in the computation of the payments made. I took November, 1931, deliberately, not to make a debating point against hon. Members opposite. If I had gone to 1924 the figure would have been very different. Since 1931 and since the National Government came in the average payment per applicant has risen from 19s. to 24s. 1d. I stand here and repeat what I said in July. The Government believe that these Regulations will be a great improvement on the old. They believe that they are fair and they believe that with these competent local advisory committees with experience of administration, the transition from the old to the new will be with a minimum of hardship to those concerned. Therefore, I must ask the House to reject the Motion.

Mr. BEVAN: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to answer points which had been made. I put some questions. I asked whether it was the intention of the Regulations to defend the assessment of the needs of a man at 10s. a week and of a woman at 9s. a


week? Was it the intention of the Regulations to pay a wage of 28s. for six days to a miner who has unemployed members in his family and was it the intention to pay to the head of a household for working six days 8s. more than if he was unemployed, and would he say that that assessment of need was adequate?

Mr. BROWN: My answer is quite plain. As every Member of the House knows, you cannot judge Regulations by selected cases. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that kind of argument is dialectical sophistry.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: We must for a few minutes consider the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. The country has been led to believe that an applicant in receipt of an allowance is paid more than in 1931. The Minister knows, and Members of this House must know, that in 1931 the National Government applied the Economy Act and that it operated to impose a cut of 10 per cent. on the unemployed. We have had estimates quoted in this House of the sum of money extracted from families in that way. Members on both sides of the House have pressed the Government for the abolition of the means test. The Government are not prepared to do that because they know they are extracting from the family income something that should fall upon the State. I want to charge the Minister with deliberately misrepresenting the position. It is quite impossible for anyone in this House to understand correctly the implication of these figures unless all the facts are placed before them. A bare statement that 19s. was the figure in November, 1931, and that 24s. is the figure in 1936 is certainly deliberately misleading the House, because in the interval the 10 per cent. cut has been restored to those in receipt of benefits but the means test now applies to those who previously came under the same Act.
It is known to Members in this House that the purpose of operating the means test at the moment is to extract money from those in the household who are working. The Minister knows that the Government are not prepared to remove the means test because it is a tax on the

wages fund. They are taking wages from the household. The figures given by the Minister indicate that in the case of a single man working part time the wages he earns will be taken into calculation when the amount of allowance is assessed. In former days that was not so. If a person worked part time and was idle for three days he received benefit for those three days. In the future if a person works three days that will deprive him of benefit or of allowances for the other part of the week. It is nothing but a piece of trickery on the part of the Minister to put forward these figures and make the House believe that people are receiving this benefit. It is true that the new Regulations are better than the old Regulaions, but the Government had to withdraw the old ones because they were so bad. A Miniser was removed because the old Regulations were so bad.
It is true that the new Regulations are better than the old ones, but it is equally true that they make the position substantially worse than in 1931, because all persons in receipt of transitional benefit then received the same amount as those in receipt of unemployment benefit. The Minister has deliberately deceived the House by comparing the new Regulations with the old. He should compare the new Regulations with the position before the Economy Act. If that comparison is made it will be found that millions of pounds have been taken from the earnings of those at work to keep those who are idle. It is a tax on the wages fund of this country and to that extent the Government are escaping the obligation to pay money out of the Treasury. We hope that Members who have heard the Debate to-day will feel dissatisfied with what the Minister has said and will follow the Opposition into the Division Lobbies. All we ask is that there should be no reductions. The substance of the Minister's reply is that there are no reductions. That being the substance of his speech, he ought to be prepared to accept the Motion.
He is not prepared to accept the Motion because he knows that in the near future there will be a reduction in the case of a single man from 17s. to 10s. He knows that by the normal operations of the Regulations a single man in future will have to live upon the other members of the household. I trust that Members who have heard the Debate,


and particularly the reply of the Minister, will find something lacking in that reply and will support us. We who live in the depressed areas realise what it is that confronts these people. This is the reward of thrift. This is the incentive they have to save a little. If they have saved a little and they strike vicissitudes the little that they have saved must all be used up to carry them through the lean periods that arise under the present economic order. We are asking, if you like, for a standstill order to apply. We ask that no further cuts should be imposed on these unfortunate people and we consider that we ought to have the support of most Members in the Division Lobby.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: There has been a presumption in this Debate that the unemployed in this country have been living upon and are to continue to live upon the allowances provided under these Regulations. There is no justification whatever for that presumption. The plans of the Government for dealing with the unemployed go far beyond the Regulations. Indeed one might usefully spend a little time in considering how many Government Departments are now directly or indirectly interested in the problem of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in the course of his strongly reasoned speech in introducing this Debate said that in the early days of unemployment insurance it was emphasised by Ministers that insurance benefits were never intended to take the place of wages. They were simply to be regarded as sums of money provided for the purpose of tiding over an unfortunate individual who was unemployed for three or four weeks.
I remember a responsible Member of the Government dwelling sympathetically and almost lovingly on the position of the unfortunate working man or working woman who for some cause, from a seasonal or other cause, was thrown idle for a period of four weeks. A working man in that position who had drawn wages regularly perhaps for four or five years, who possessed a home as near completion as any ordinary wage-earning man could have, became unemployed for four weeks, and the Government said they were going to deal sympathetically

with him. They said, "We don't want you to get into debt. We will provide 26s. a week to tide you over these four weeks." These insurance benefits were simply intended, in the words of Ministers, to be a slight assistance to enable a man to tide over a brief spell of unemployment.
Then when the Government had to deal with the hard core of unemployed they said they were not going to consider whether they could assist to ease the burden of an unemployed man. Under the Unemployment Assistance Regulations they would consider every need of his family. Does the Minister charged with responsibility for a miner in my division who has been unemployed 14 years accept responsibility to consider every need of his family? If so, how has he done it? He has done it by introducing Regulations which actually reduce the assistance given to that man and his wife below the assistance granted to a man who has been idle only four weeks. Where, after five years, say, of regular work, a man suddenly becomes unemployed for four weeks, the Minister of Labour says that under the Unemployment Insurance Act that man is entitled to 26s. per week, independently of whatever resources he may have, but the man who is idle for 10 years is entitled only to 24s. The workman who has worked regularly for five years has a home as near to his standard of comfort as he can bring it, his furniture is intact, his household utensils are plentiful, he, his wife and children are adequately, though not sumptuously, dressed and the children are fed within the home, but the home of the man who has been idle for 10 years is reduced to a skeleton, the utensils have been destroyed by the accidents that occur in every homestead, his clothes and those of his wife are worn out, and his children are no longer fed in the home. That is what the Minister has to deal with. What use is the nonsense that he talked from that Box this evening?
What is the Department of Education doing in connection with this problem? The Minister of Education is bearing a greater responsibility for the school children in my Division than is the Minister of Labour, because he is feeding them. The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for public assistance, has declared:


"We have assessed all your need." If he has assessed all the needs of the unemployed in the Rhondda, what has the Minister of Education to do with it. Why is he bothering? Where is the Minister of Agriculture? Bring him in. Why is he bothering about milk schemes if the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education have already dealt adequately with the matter? The Minister of Agriculture comes in, as it were to complete it, but there is still another Department interested, the Ministry of Health. When are we to get the complete estimate of needs? Perhaps the Secretary of State for War will come in and say what he requires to be done in respect of physical fitness. Perhaps the Admiralty will have a shot at it, and the Royal Air Force, after that.
Perhaps the needs of the unemployed will be adequately met when we have completed the round of all the Government Departments and sub-Departments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I would like to divide some of those hon. Members among the unemployed of the Rhondda. I would like to take them to see the people there, and to see the problem in all the horror of it. People are not living upon the allowances which the Minister of Labour talks about. Nowhere are people doing it. I have shown that many other Government Departments are compelled to come in and fill up the gaps left by the Minister of Labour, because he and the Unemployment Assistance Board have not done their job. They have failed to assess the full needs of the unemployed. When we were provided with a procession, a sort of circus, the other day in South Wales, I said that they were coming down to bolster up a piece of charity-mongering. In addition to the Departments which I have mentioned, there is the charity side of it. Not only does the Minister of Labour fail to rely entirely upon public assistance, plus the Ministries of Education, Agriculture and Health, but he goes outside them, and looks for charity to assist the unemployed. When any special need of an unfortunate workman has to be considered, it is referred to an outside body, some charity organisation in the area. There is no justification for the Minister of Labour pretending to take unction to his soul that he has succeeded,

by way of the new Regulations, in doing something which the old Regulations failed to do.
If the Minister of Labour says that the new Regulations will place a family on a better footing than the old Regulations, I invite him to name the family in the Rhondda that will be better off. Only the new age class differentiates the new Regulations from the old, as applied to South Wales, the group from 16 years of age to 18. If the Minister contrasts the new Regulations with the old, he must do it on the basis of that class. He tried to hold up his end against the charge levelled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall)—which the hon. Member would have no difficulty in sustaining—that the reason why the average payment per head of applicants has risen is because the mass of single men has been taken out. Thousands of single men have left South Wales; leaving a larger proportion of married applicants. The average of the married applicant is higher. The Minister knows that full well, and it is a piece of sophistry on his part to attempt to get out of his difficulty by such a specious argument.
I will give the Minister a further reply on the same lines. Many of our children have left South Wales, particularly the girls who have entered domestic service all over the country, and consequently, families cannot benefit by the increased allowance per head for children between 16 and 18 years of age, because the children are no longer there. That is a factor which the Minister, and anybody who tries to defend him, must face. Hon. Members opposite claim that they speak with the full accord and support of the working class in their Divisions. Let me now challenge anyone to invite me to come to his Division and address that same working class, and let them agree to abide by the result. I do not care where it may be in this country; I guarantee, when the full statement of this case is put before those people, that no body of working men and women in Britain would not support the Motion. I include the Minister of Labour himself; I will go to his Division if he likes. I guarantee that you will not find audiences to support him against this Motion. If he thinks they will, let him accept this challenge and arrange a meeting.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. S. O. DAVIES: I would not have intervened at this time in this Debate had it not been for the extraordinary and deliberately provocative speech made by the Minister a few minutes ago. Hon. Members who are in the House now and who object to my rising, should have been here during the hours that this Debate has been going on. It is not for those who have only just rushed in to determine the course of the Debate or the procedure, particularly after the exhibition which we have had from a responsible Minister in respect of one of the greatest and most serious problems confronting this country. We are annoyed and angry at the attitude the Minister took up when he addressed the House. He deliberately avoided dealing with the real subject matter of the Motion, and he has not answered the questions that were placed before him. Let me put a question to him: Is it not a fact that the allowance of 26s. a week paid to thousands of married men will be reduced to 24s., if there are any means, however small, in their households; and that thousands of single men under the Unemployment Assistance Board will have their present allowance of 17s. reduced to a maximum of 10s. 1 The Minister refused to give us anything approaching an estimate of cases of that kind.
Representing a constituency which the Minister has often admitted is possibly more hard-hit by unemployment than any other—he has expressed his sympathy repeatedly with conditions in my constituency and in the county of Glamorgan—I tell him that these reductions will affect hundreds of cases. The purchasing power in that constituency is going to be—I am not exaggerating my language—disastrously reduced when these new scales and Regulations come into operation. We are appealing to the House to-night because we know what will be the effect of these new Regulations on the constituencies that we represent. Not only will individual applicants have their present harsh conditions made worse, but scores of small business people, who are now tottering on the verge of bankruptcy, will be driven over the precipice, their businesses will be destroyed, and there will be fresh streets of closed shops in the constituencies that some of us represent.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) to talk in what I am bound to say was the perfectly stupid fashion in which he spoke this evening. He appeals for humanity, and then gets up in support of the Government, speaks against this Motion, and gives support to the means test and the drastic reductions which the new Regulations will bring into being. The hon. Member told us more than once during his speech that he was surprised that he was not getting complaints, that he was not getting the reports that we were getting from our constituencies. After his speech to-night, I am not surprised that nobody is taking any notice at all of the hon. Gentleman. He made a disgusting exhibition of an apology for the Government in the form of a speech that he dare not make to the unemployed in Gateshead.
Further, will not the single woman coming within these scales and Regulations have her benefit reduced to a maximum of 9s.? It is all very well for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to smile; they will go into the Division Lobby at some time this evening—I do not know when— to vote against this Motion, and again they will decide that 10s. a week as a maximum payment is enough for a single man over 21 years of age, and that 9s. a week is the maximum income on which a single young woman with no resources must be expected to live. The Minister has made a speech to-night trying to persuade the House, and I am forced to the conclusion that on methods of this kind it is not difficult to persuade the supporters of the Government. In fact, the cheers from the Government Benches this evening, the smiles of superiority, and the supercilious attitude adopted, show that they have never appreciated the social dangers involved in the problems that we are discussing to-night.
As was pointed out this evening by an hon. Member on these benches, there is a limit beyond which the finest and most robust citizens that we have in this country will not accept humiliation. One of the most amazing things that I have seen for some years was that extraordinary march, from almost every point of the compass in this country, of 2,000 men, travelling from the North of Scotland, from the North-East Coast, from Cumberland, from South Wales, and the splendid, orderly, dignified way in which


they made their protest. But let the Minister and the Government be under no illusion. Those men have been bred in the industrial life of this country; they belong to a section of our population that has a minimum of squeamishness; they are men who are very sensitive to the way in which they are treated in their unemployment; they are men who know the meaning of a splendid day's work; they are men who hunger for work. They have had to face a series of humiliations on the part of Ministers on those benches, and there is a limit beyond which they will not accept any further humiliation.
The Minister was asked—he did not reply—what would be the price of this concession. It is known that in the aggregate, in pounds, shillings and pence, it would not be a great deal, but the spirit of the concession would be appreciated by those who have suffered years of unemployment. The formula which the Minister gave to-night blinds nobody who lives in the constituencies; these reductions arc going to be effected. It is no use talking about the local advisory committees. They are mere shock absorbers. We know, and the Minister has been compelled to tell the House before to-day, what are the limited recommendatory powers of these local advisory committees. He knows that they can only make recommendations with regard to rent, or possibly the length of time that these atrocious reductions will take to become effective as far as the people are concerned.

I am not apologising to the House for having got up at this time of the evening. The Minister has provoked us. The callous way in which he has reacted to the appeal of these unemployed people has proved to-night that his sympathy for the depressed areas is purely rhetorical lip-service. A Minister with the courage of a man who professes to entertain the ideals that the present Minister does, a Minister who had any semblance of Christian spirit, would have responded, whatever the consequences, to the appeal of these men, women and children. I must ask him not to throw figures across the Floor of this House. Yes, £8,000,000 was paid out last year in South Wales to 750,000 souls. Most of them had known the hunger and the shortcomings of unemployment for many years. This side of the House will not permit any Minister of Labour to treat masses of people in this country with the contempt with which the right hon. Gentleman has treated them, and they will always find a voice raised in their defence, whatever the consequences within this House may be.

Question put,
That, being opposed to any action calculated to intensify the appalling distress prevailing in many parts of the Country, this House is of opinion that the Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations, in so far as they will involve reductions in existing allowances., should be suspended.

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 218.

Division No. 47.]
AYES.
[7.55 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Jagger, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Ammon, C. G.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
John, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gardner, B. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Banfield, J. W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Barnes, A. J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, J.
Gibbins, J.
Kelly, W. T.


Belienger, F.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Benson, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Kirkwood, D.


Bevan, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lathan, G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Leach, W.


Broad, F. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Lee, F.


Brooke, W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Leonard, W.


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Leslle, J. R.


Burke, W. A.
Groves, T. E.
Logan, D. G.


Chater D
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall J. H. (Whitechapel)
McEntee, V. La T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hardle, G. D.
McGhee, H. G.


Cocks F. S.
Harris, Sir P. A.
McGovern, J.


Daggar, G.
Hayday, A.
MacLaren, A.


Dalton. H.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Mainwarlng, W. H.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Mander, G. le M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Holdsworth, H.
Maxton, J.


Day H.
Hollins, A.
Messer, F.


Dobbie, W.
Hopkin, D.
Milner. Major J.




Montague, F.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Thorne, W.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Rothschild, J. A. de
Thurtle. E.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Rowson, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Muff, G.
Salter, Dr. A.
Viant, S. P.


Naylor, T. E.
Sanders, W. S.
Walker, J.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Watkins, F. C.


Oliver, G. H.
Sexton, T. M.
Watson, W. McL.


Owen, Major G.
Shinwell, E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon, J. C.


Paling, W.
Short, A.
Westwood, J.


Parker, J.
Silkin, L.
White, H. Graham


Parkinson, J. A.
Simpson, F. B.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Potts, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Price, M. P.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Pritt, D. N.
Sorensen, R. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Stephen, c.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ridley, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)



Riley, B.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Duggan, H. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Albery, Sir Irving
Duncan, J. A. L.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Eastwood, J. F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (lsle of Wight)


Assheton, R.
Ellis, Sir G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Elmiey, Viscount
Magnay, T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle ot Thanet)
Errington, E.
Maxwell, S. A.


Bainiel, Lord
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J


Baxter, A. Beverley
Everard, W. L.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Morgan, R. H.


Blair, Sir R.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Blindell, Sir J.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)


Boulton, W. W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Munro, P


Bracken, B.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nall, Sir J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guy, J. C. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bull, B. B.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Patrick, C. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Peake, O.


Burghley, Lord
Hannah, I. C.
Peat, C. U.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Penny, Sir G.


Burton, Col H. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Butler, R. A.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cary, R. A.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Plugge, L. F.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Porritt, R.W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Procter, Major H. A.


Cazalet, Capt V. A. (Chippenham)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Radford, E. A.


Channon M
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reld, W. Allan (Derby)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Remer, J. R.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Clarke, F. E.
Hulbert, N. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hunter, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ross, Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jackson, Sir H.
Rowlands, G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
James, Wing-Commander A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salt, E. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Sandys, E. D.


Crooke, J. S.
Latham, Sir P.
Scott, Lord William


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Selley, H. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leckie, J. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simmonds, O. E.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Levy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon Sir J. A.


De Chair, S. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Doland, G. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Donner, P. W.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Spens, W. P.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Saiop)
Loftus, P. C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)







Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Tufnell, Lleut.-Com. R. L.
Wells, S. R.


Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Turton, R. H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wakefleld, W. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Sutcliffe, H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Tate, Mavis C.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Warrender, Sir V.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Touche, G. C.
Waterhouse, Captain C.



Tree, A. R. L. F.
Wayland, Sir W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Dr. Morris-Jones and Mr. Cross.


Resolutions agreed to.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir G. Penny.]

8.4 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: This is the last opportunity that we shall have of discussing the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation before it comes into existence on 1st January. This Corporation whose future we are deciding tonight is in the political sphere an invention as novel and as interesting as wireless itself has been. It is an example of an experiment in public ownership, combined with commercial management, which has, I think, never been attempted anywhere else in the world until we did so here. The fact that this charter will be passed without a Division shows that, so far as the broad principle of the experiment is concerned, it has been justified in the view of the majority of the House. But the experiment raises very unusual questions as to the relationship between the Corporation and Parliament and the Government which I will take this opportunity of defining as they appear to us on this side. It has been laid down, and we have accepted the doctrine, that Parliament should control the general policy of the Corporation, but should leave the day-to-day management of programmes and details to the Corporation itself.
If the House wished, we could, after the charter, control the Corporation in detail, because the Government can control any items that the Corporation sends out, and can forbid it to send out items, and the Government are answerable to the House. But the fact is that the House has accepted a self-denying ordinance by which it has confined its actual power to general policy. That means that the Corporation itself should, on its side, act towards the House in the

spirit in which the charter has been granted. The Corporation must, on matters of general policy, accept the views of Parliament. How are those views to be brought before it? We have no resolution. In the last 10 years there has only been one Resolution dealing with the Corporation. How, then, is it to know what is the general policy that it is to follow? I would lay it down as a proposition that the Corporation must pay the most careful attention to the Debates in this House and, when suggestions are made which are obviously according to the general sense of the House, it is the duty of the Corporation to take them as a guide for its general policy in the future. I lay that down as the only principle on which we can really control this very delicate arrangement between us.
I say that because I do not think experience has shown that the Corporation has been very responsive to the general spirit of our debates. I will take one case. On the very day that the Ullswater Report was in the Vote Office, within an hour or two, almost before we could read it, the Corporation issued an attack on it, which it could only have issued because it was allowed the privilege of having confidential information from the committee. It took it for granted that the Ullswater Committee was appointed to pronounce a verdict on the Corporation as to whether we should renew the charter. The Corporation assumed that it was a body of equal authority with the committee itself. Let me take the case of staff associations. I am not talking of wage earners but of the higher administrative personnel, men who, if they were in the Civil Service, would be principals and assistant principals. The committee recommended that there should be staff associations corresponding with those in the Civil Service for the higher clerical staff. The Corporation attacked that recommendation. There was a debate in the House and the general feeling was that staff associations were appropriate


to this undertaking. The Government accepted the general feeling and recommended staff associations. As a result, in the Debate in July last the Postmaster-General said that the problem of staff associations was under the active examination of the Corporation.
I put a question last week as to how many staff associations had been set up, and the Postmaster-General's reply was that the question was under the active examination of the Corporation. Five months had passed, but they had not lilted a finger to carry out the wishes of the House and the recommendations of the Government. I think it is necessary to make it clear to the Corporation that it cannot in the long run defeat the House; of Commons, and that it is miscalculating if it thinks that we are going to forget the wishes that we have expressed. The engineering side, the carpenters and other wage earners in the Corporation, are already catered for by existing trade unions which have members in the Corporation service. We certainly do not mean that the place of those existing trade unions should be taken by mere house associations and we shall most strongly resent and resist any attempt to supplant them by mere house associations of the old-fashioned type.
I have spoken of the question of staff associations because it leads to the subject on which I wish mainly to direct the attention of the House, the continual complaints that we receive of terrorism, favouritism and intrigue as the means by which the internal administration of the Corporation is carred on. I have had, since I spoke on the subject in the Debate nine or 10 months ago, a most unusual experience? Ever since then, if I talk to any employé of the Corporation, I am made to feel like a conspirator. I have friends in the Corporation whom I have known for years and, if I talk to them, they look round to see whether they are being followed. They warn me that I must not telephone to them, because the telephone will be tapped, and I would not telephone to a friend at the Corporation now. They have told me that, if I write to them there, they are not sure that letters will be delivered. I have never before had this experience in my life. I cannot say any more about it than I have told the House but, if that is how men in high position, who would certainly be of the principal or

assistant secretary grade in the Civil Service, are treated, it indicates that there is something very morbid, unhealthy and overwrought in the atmosphere of the place.
The reason is clear. This system of paternal despotism was suitable, natural perhaps, and understandable when the Corporation was a small band of officials, a family, a few years ago, but now it is a great organisation with a thousand officials scattered throughout the country. It has become an autocracy which has outgrown the original autocrat. It is a despotism in decay, and bears all i the marks of that type of government. Members inside have told me that it is the nearest thing in this country to Nazi government that can be shown. Therefore, what I am going to ask the House to support is a proposal that there should be an inquiry as to whether there should not be introduced among the officials of the Corporation some degree of security of tenure and a regular system of increments and promotion. That is the main suggestion that I am going to make.
This brings me to the Lambert v. Levita case, and the report upon it, which, as a matter of fact, was the reason why we originally asked for this Debate. I will tell the House the main facts which led up to this report. On 7th February last, Major Gladstone Murray was asked to lunch by Sir Cecil Levita, and at that lunch Sir Cecil Levita uttered what was declared in the courts later to be a very grave slander.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: On a point of Order. Will it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this case in the manner in which we are now proceeding to do, in view of the fact that we understand that an appeal has been lodged in the case of Lambert v. Levita and that therefore we ought not in this House to introduce a matter which may affect the proceedings in the court?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: In fact, no appeal has been lodged, and cases have been discussed at this stage before.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman would discuss the proceedings of the case in the court but that he would discuss the report of the committee, which does not appear to me to have any relevance.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am going to state the actual facts which led up to the report. I am going to state the verdict of the court, but I am not going to discuss whether the verdict is right or wrong. This is what I am permitted to do. I say that the facts were that there was this lunch, and what the court described as slander was uttered. Major Gladstone Murray then had to decide what to do, and he decided, for reasons which I shall explain, that the best course was, instead of going to a higher authority officially, to tell Mr. Lambert of this matter personally. Mr. Lambert then wrote asking for an apology. He was put off by letters delaying the final reply, and meanwhile Sir Cecil Levita went to see Mr. Norman, Governor of the Corporation, in the country. Then Mr. Lambert received a letter that the matter would be discussed by the high officials of the Corporation. It was discussed by the Governors, and the next day, on 6th March, Mr. Lambert was handed a memorandum by Sir Stephen Tallents, which is really almost the main subject of the inquiry. It is on page 14. I will read the last few words to the House. Sir Stephen Tallents assured him
that his position with the Corporation was not at present in any way prejudiced or damaged.
He also told him
that, if he went on with the course which he had indicated to the Chairman the previous morning, there was a serious danger that he might prejudice his position with the Corporation because

(i) he would make the Corporation doubt his judgment;
(ii) he would seem to be placing his own interests in priority to those of the Corporation."
This was on 6th March. The next day the writ was issued, and after that no important events connected with the action took place. I mention that because the report makes a great difference between the period before 6th March and the period after 6th March. Yet, as far as the action is concerned, no really substantial issue at all arose after the writ was issued the day after the Memorandum was presented to Mr. Lambert. On that Memorandum, I will tell the House what the verdict of the court was in this case and the words with which the judge concluded his charge to the jury:

You may think it is a dreadful thing when a man in a public position, as I suppose all employés of the B.B.C. are, thinks he has been affronted and outraged and brings an action in these courts demanding redress for the wrong that has been done him, that behind his back his employers should be approached and asked to bring pressure upon him to settle the matter. Bear these things in mind when you are considering what damages should be awarded.
And the jury awarded damages of £7,500. Of course, this naturally raised the question that if that was the view of the jury of the action of Sir Cecil Levita, what must be the view taken of the attitude of the Corporation—the Governors—in attempting to bring this pressure to bear upon Mr. Lambert to withdraw from the action or not to take action. That is the subject which this report investigates. Before coming to the main conclusion, there is one part of it upon which I should like to say a word, because it is necessary, I think, for the sake of the position of a very high servant—the position of Major Gladstone Murray, who is now, next to Sir John Reith, the most important broadcasting official in the British Empire. The report makes severe strictures upon him, and I must say a word upon that point in justice to him. I may tell the House that this is not a personal matter. I have seen Major Gladstone Murray once in my life, and only once. Major Gladstone Murray is in Canada. He offered to come over and give evidence, which he could have done in six days. It has been months since the Committee was appointed. This was declined. He offered to send evidence. That was not taken up. His solicitor here had his version of his reasons, but that was not asked for. No word of explanation was asked from him by the Committee, They speak in severe terms of his error of judgment and suggest that he was originally responsible for the subsequent events. In justice to him the House should see his position.
The fact is that here again we are confronted with one of the unhealthy features of the administration of the Corporation. In a Government Department, in any big institution, there are reports. In the Army and Navy there are reports on the officers of the Services, but those reports can be seen. The man knows what is in the report, and if he is dismissed the reason is there in writing. The Corporation prefer a series of secret dossiers,


as a result of which the officers do not know what is in the dossier, they do not know why their promotion is hindered or if, as sometimes happens, they are dismissed, they are dismissed without knowing what the reasons are. In these circumstances Major Gladstone Murray had to make up his mind and come to a decision and he apparently thought that if he reported this matter officially to Sir John Reith it would go upon Mr. Lambert's secret dossier and Mr. Lambert would probably not hear of it. It might lead to his dismissal and, incidentally, if he was on that dossier it would probably mean that Mr. Lambert would be withdrawn from the Film Institute, and Sir Cecil Levita would gain his object. It was not unnatural for Major Gladstone Murray to say: "I will tell Mr. Lambert personally, and he will perhaps try to get an apology, and if that apology is forthcoming the whole matter will end without any official action being taken, and the secret dossier being entered upon." In these circumstances, I do not think that the committee are justified in condemning Major Gladstone Murray without having taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with the position which I have outlined to the House.
I am not going to deal with the personal issues in the report, because there is a very important suggestion at the end of it on which I should like to take the opinion and to have the support of the House. The personal issues are summed up on page 22. The report says:
We reject entirely Mr. Lambert's theory of persecution.
They consider that the Corporation Governors were actuated by honest motives, but they go on to say:
It does not follow that because the B.B.C. were honest in what they did they were also wise; and, in fact, we are bound to record our opinion that they were ill-advised in many of the things which were done during the period up to and including 6th March; and when we speak"—
I would ask the House to notice this statement—
of the B.B.C. in this connection, we refer both to the Governors and to the officials concerned.
I ask the House to notice that statement, because it would be most unfair if because Sir Stephen Tallents signed that memorandum he were made the scape-

goat of this affair. If he is to be a scapegoat, the Governors and Sir John Reith must be scapegoats at the same time.
Now I come to what, I think, is for the purposes of the House of Commons the most important section of the report, namely, the last two pages, pages 29–31. I do not think that we shall get much further by discussing the personal issues in this case, but we have to consider the future, and I think it is possible to use this opportunity to make the future of the B.B.C. one which has many more conditions of happiness for those inside than it has at the present time. I have tried in the last few months to learn both sides of this question, and I would not advise any friend of mine to become an employé of the Corporation. Therefore, I come to what I consider the most important part of the document. It appears to me that what is required from the B.B.C. is, first of all, some security of tenure for its high administrative staff. Every one of them is subject to three months' notice. The Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office does work which is just as delicate as that of any official of the Corporation, but we do not take the view which the Corporation does, that he will not do his work well unless he is anxious every moment whether he is going to hold his job. No man can do good work under the continual influence of fear. That is a lesson which the Corporation has not learned.
The next suggestion that I make is that there should be a regularised system of promotion and a regular system of increments under which if officers lose their increment they should, as in the Civil Service, be told the reason why, so that they can improve their work. It is not so at the B.B.C. It is the secret dossier system. I should like the House to note the result of this. See what happened in the case of Mr. Lambert. It is dealt with in the report. Mr. Lambert had received his ordinary increment every year since he took up his position, except for one year when owing to general financial stringency, there were no increments. Last January he was commended on account of his work. In March this trouble arose. In April the whole of his staff received increments, but Mr. Lambert's increment for the first time, except in the one year I have mentioned, was refused. No reason was


given. Can anyone be surprised that he thought the reason might have some connection with his refusal not to exercise his rights as a citizen and take action in the court for slander?
The last page of the report shows that these civil servants are amazed at the staff administration of the B.B.C. They are amazed at the fact that it is so haphazard, so hugger-mugger. They point out that this case is once dealt with by the Governors, then by the Chairman, then by the Vice-Chairman, then by Sir Stephen Tallents and then by Sir John Reith, and meanwhile, apparently, not one of them, until the matter was told in the court, knew what the libel actually was. The B.B.C. would be well advised if it took the advice of institutions whose magnitude is comparable to its own as to how these matters should be dealt with. The Committee suggest that they should take the advice on staff questions of the Civil Service, the Treasury and other great undertakings which work on a large scale.
The suggestion that I definitely wish to make is that the B.B.C. should, with assistance of that kind, inquire into the question of introducing security of tenure, regular promotion and regular increments on the Civil Service plan, and, of course staff organisation, which they have already accepted hut not carried out. These other matters they have not yet accepted. If that be the view of the House and if that were done, and I hope I shall have the support of the House in suggesting that it should be done, then I think that eventually good might arise out of this rather silly and undignified scandal.

8.35 p.m.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): I am sure no one will complain of the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he expressed the hope that good may come out of evil, and that the result of this particular incident will not be as serious as was expected. It is not wise to begin quoting portions of the report; hon. Members will be far wiser to read the whole of it before coming to a conclusion. Some portions of the report throw a light on other phases of this question, and I suggest, indeed I beg, hon. Members to read the whole of the report and not quote ex-

tracts which may not give the whole picture. I will take up only one remark of the right hon. Gentleman. He said how unfair it was for anyone to attack Sir Stephen Tallents in view of the fact that there was a higher responsibility. I am not disputing that, but it is unfortunate that such a great opponent of dictators as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was not present, because he made a most violent attack on Sir John Reith without telling the House that the Governors were responsible for the decision and that the Governors authorised Sir Stephen Tallents to take this action. Throughout the Governors are in charge and if the right hon. Gentleman says that we must not throw too much blame on Sir Stephen Tallents, what can we say for the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol who made a most violent personal attack on Sir John Reith, called him a dictator, and had not the courage to acknowledge that the responsibility lies with the Governors, just as in a Government Department the responsibility lies with the Minister and not with the Permanent Secretary or the staff.
I wish, in the first place, to thank the three distinguished people who gave up so much of their time to go fully into this difficult and intricate case. They took an enormous amount of trouble and I am sorry that anybody should be disposed to dispute the justice or impartiality of their verdict. I should also like to thank the right hon. Member for his last observation. If anything can be done to improve the position of the B.B.C. through the lessons which may he learnt from this incident it will be all to the good. I feel myself that the Governors, who are the people in charge, will not fail to take note of the suggestions which have been made by these three eminent persons with regard to the machinery of administration, so that a matter may go through regular channels and not jump from one channel to another. In the second place, any arrangements which can be made to bring to the assistance of the Governors the great experience and advice of the Civil Service will not only be accepted but will do a great deal to remove many of the present difficulties. I do not say that an organisation so varied in its work, with people of such different occupations, those who entertain,


engineers and scientists, can be easily adjusted to the ordinary machinery of staff representation, but I hope, and I am sure, that the Governors will derive benefit from such advice, and I am in favour of their doing all they can, by drawing on the experience and advice of the Civil Service, to remove these difficulties, so that cases of this sort shall never happen again. I agree that if it had been organised more on Civil Service lines—I am speaking for myself —than it is, this comparatively trivial matter would never have come about.
I should like to quote one comment which is so apt that I must disclaim at once that I am the author of it. But in the "Daily Telegraph" it was said that the result of this examination of the Lambert case was that while nobody concerned got full marks, nobody was ploughed. That was a very happy phrase. It is said that there was a general lack of wisdom, that there were, errors. Our concern is to see that this wonderful institution shall go forward helped by the lessons of this incident. As the House will remember we are going, within the next three days, to issue a charter which we have laid before the House as a draft charter, to prolong the British Broadcasting Corporation for 10 years, and a draft licence and agreement regulating their work in the future. Broadcasting in this country for about three years was run by a company, apparently because the manufacturers of radio sets found that it was no good manufacturing sets if there were no programmes to listen to. After three years this Corporation was set up; it is something between nationalisation and individual enterprise. But the fact that there has been no serious change in the charter for 10 years shows that it was well founded and that it has worked in a manner of which we can be proud. Towards the end of the first 10 years my predecessor, looking ahead, set up the Ullswater Committee with very eminent
people upon it. I should like respectfully to express my admiration for the way in which the Leader of the Opposition took a prominent part and gave up much of his time to work on this great national committee, and the report which they presented paid a great tribute to the spirit of the Corporation and the way in which they had

discharged their duties. It may be summarised in the words that they conducted it in the national interest.
They made a number of recommendations, and in order that the House may be reminded of what is in the draft charter may I remind hon. Members of some of its provisions? In the first place, the charter is to be renewed for another 10 years. I believe that the British Broadcasting Corporation wanted a longer period. My own view is that with a thing which develops and changes so rapidly and at such a speed, 10 years mean a great deal and it is quite long enough. Moreover it is the period suggested by the Committee. The next suggestion is that there should be seven governors instead of five. I do not think there is much as between five and seven, but as seven were recommended we thought it was as well to do what the Committee proposed. I think we are right, and I shall be able later on to announce two additional governors whose names, I think, will be welcomed by hon. Members. Then the salaries of the governors are to be raised.
Now I come to the question of the functions of the Postmaster-General in relation to the Broadcasting Corporation. I have never taken part in a debate in which one's position is more difficult than in debates connected with the British Broadcasting Corporation. I have to discuss matters for which I am not responsible in detail and over which I have no control in detail. The Debate is a curious and unusual one. From the point of view of the Post Office, I can imagine no greater assistance to our work than that these difficult tasks of dealing with the Broadcasting Corporation should be handed over to the administration of an elder statesman. If the elder statesman has as much work to do as I have had during the last year he will soon be a good deal older. The position is really rather difficult. The suggestion is—as far as the Post Office is concerned it does not meet with any opposition—that this elder statesman, of great age apparently, was to be responsible for the cultural side of the B.B.C. How in the world can anybody be responsible for a thing unless he is in charge of it? If the policy or general culture—I do not like the word—of the Corporation did not meet with favour in the House, what would happen


if it were possible for the elder statesman to have his salary reduced because of what somebody else had done? That would be an absurd position.
I come now to one or two interesting points. I ought to have mentioned before that one of the tests of the success of the British system of broadcasting is that there are now very nearly 8,000,000 wireless licences in the country, and, as I am told that there are about 11,000,000 houses in the country, it seems to me that a, very large portion of the population listens-in to broadcasts and appreciates them. Otherwise so many licences would not be taken out. The income of the Corporation will in future be 75 per cent. of the net licence revenue, and that will amount next year to £2,800,000, which is about £400,000 a year more than they would have received under the old arrangement. The Corporation were asked to develop Empire broadcasting. Those of us who know something of the amount of broadcasting that is being done by foreign countries all over the world—a great deal of it not to the benefit of this country—cannot over-estimate the value of broadcasting for good, loyal and sound purposes throughout the world and the British Empire. It is a most important service, and the Corporation can do a great public work by developing it.
Another subject is television. The charter will be historical in one way, because for the first time there is in it express authority for the B.B.C. to conduct a television service. I think I had better not go into the question of television in view of the shortness of time available to other hon. Members, but it is an extraordinarily intricate subject on which I could say a good deal. I would only say that I very much dislike the method of address which is used in television broadcasts whereby the announcer uses the expression "viewers," which is certainly a rather insufficient way of addressing an audience which, after all, hears as well as sees. I think the word "audience" is quite a good one, or possibly "ladies and gentlemen."
There is another question into the technicalities of which I will not go, but the B.B.C. assist certain concerts, notably in the Queen's Hall; and there is anxiety in the entertainment trade that they might launch out into all sorts of enter-

tainments all over the country, and, if I may be colloquial, cut very heavily into the entertainment trade and the music-hall business—I do not think that is the right word—in other parts of the country. The position is that they cannot do that without getting the authority of the Postmaster-General, and that seems to be a not unreasonable restriction.
I will deal now with the very delicate question of the veto. The British Broadcasting Corporation asked that when they made an announcement at the request of a Government Department, they should be allowed to say that they did it at the request of the Department. That seems to me perfectly reasonable, and we have agreed to it. There has always been in the charter a provision which gives the Government the right of veto, a right which to my knowledge has never been exercised, but it is there, and might he necessary in certain emergencies. The B.B.C. might, on the one hand, be allowed discretion to say whether a veto had been exercised or not, but on the other hand it might be to the Government that discretion should go. The subject is a delicate one, but the Government have decided that there might be circumstances in which it would be necessary for them to stop a broadcast and not to say that it was being stopped.
I will give two illustrations, the one slight and the other very serious. Take the case of what happened at about the time of the General Election, when Naval Reserves were being called up on account of our obligations under the League of Nations. The calling up of Reserves for the Navy is a matter which is necessarily known fairly soon all over this country, but if the announcement that they were being called up were made on the wireless, it would be known in foreign countries immediately, and it might make a difference of, at all events, some hours in the time of its being known in foreign countries. The next illustration is not so serious, but there is something in it. It would not be very easy to announce that something had been stopped. Would it be said what had been stopped? One could not say, for instance, "We are not allowed to say that the Crystal Palace is on fire."
I come now to the question of the Governors. The Ullswater Committee


recommended that the existing Governors should carry on for the remainder of their term of office, the term being for five years, some of them having much and some little time to go. The Government have accepted that recommendation, and I rejoice in being able to announce to-night that in addition two new members have been invited to serve as Governors. The first name is one that will be welcomed in the whole House, and it is that of the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Sir Ian Fraser). I have seen a good deal of the hon. and gallant Member on deputations for ex-service men, and all who know him will agree that he brings a very wise judgment to these problems. He is, I am glad to say, still a young man, and that is one of the points which was emphasised in the Ullswater Committee's report. I am sure the whole House would wish me to congratulate him on this appointment, in which I know he will serve so valuably. The other name is also a very good one; it is Mr. James J. Mallon, of Toynbee Hall. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) spoke of the importance of staff associations, trade unions, and so on. Here we shall have a man on the Board of Governors with great experience of these matters, and his experience in forming trade boards and bodies of that sort in trades in which the formation of trade unions is extraordinarily difficult owing to exceptional conditions, will be of great value. He brings a very wide knowledge to the Board, and I think it will be generally agreed that he will be a help to the Corporation in dealing with some of those staff questions to which the House naturally attaches much importance.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether a Governor may be a Member of the House?

Major TRYON: It is difficult for me to speak for the hon. and gallant Member, but he is quite willing to resign his seat. I cannot say whether it is allowed, but there has never been a Member of the House as Governor of the B.B.C. However, I understand my hon. and gallant Friend will be resigning his seat.

Mr. MAXTON: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no law on the subject.

Major TRYON: I do not think there is any law on the matter, but it has been the custom.

Mr. MAXTON: I would like to be quite clear in this matter. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his election to the post of Governor, and I would say further that I should regret losing his presence in the House. I cannot see any objection to hon. Members being appointed to serve as Governors, and there would be many advantages, just as there are in the case of Forestry Commissioners who are in the House. I would like to know precisely what the law or the charter says on the subject, whatever the practice may be.

Major TRYON: I understand there is no such rule, but in the past it has not been the practice for people actively engaged in politics to be appointed. I would share the pleasure which we should all have if the hon. and gallant Member stayed in the House, but I cannot say more at the moment than that I believe in the past hon. Members have not held such positions.

Mr. PARKER: May I point out that one of the provisions of the charter, so far as the appointment of Governors is concerned, is that:
If he holds any office or place of profit in which his interests may in the opinion of Our Postmaster-General conflict with the interests of the Corporation
he is disqualified? Presumably it is for the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether the position of Member of Parliament disqualifies the hon. and gallant Member.

Major TRYON: I think I had better leave it as it is and defer any further comment on it. I turn to Wales as a broadcasting region and I am reading now a statement which has been agreed to by the B.B.C. A complete Welsh and Welsh-speaking staff has been appointed to the B.B.C. regional office in Wales. The provision of a separate wave-length has been the difficulty. Plans for meeting this difficulty are nearly completed and the date of the programme separation of Wales from the other parts of the country will be announced by the B.B.C.


shortly after Christmas. The next recommendation is that positions to be filled should be advertised. About 80 per cent. of all vacancies have been advertised in the past year. In future, practically all vacancies will be advertised, except possibly on some emergency occasions. The Ullswater Committee recommended that appointments, except those of minor staff, should be made on the recommendation of a Selection Board including one of the Civil Service Commissioners or their representative, and, possibly, an independent additional member.
That is a recommendation to which the Government attach great importance, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Corporation, on its own initiative, has agreed to inform the Civil Service Commission of all advertised vacancies, except for minor staff, and to invite the Commission to send a. representative to the appropriate appointment board. This arrangement is already in operation. The B.B.C. will also invite the help of independent assessors in the case of appointments which involve special qualifications. They have in fact done so on numerous past occasions. The Corporation was asked to
make it clear that it will provide all necessary facilities for any representative organisation whether a single staff association or smaller bodies representative of appropriate groups which its employés may wish to set up.
The Corporation has agreed to this. I should like at this point to mention that Mr. Mallon with his experience in these matters will be of great help to the B.B.C. in this work, and in addition the Corporation has appointed a new Director of Staff Administration who has had experience of staff associations and Whitley Councils in the service of the Board of Education and the London County Council. He is at present engaged upon an investigation of methods of staff representation in other organisations, and hopes shortly to be in a position to formulate proposals directed to that end, for the consideration of the persons concerned. The Corporation are prepared to give full facilities. There is one point upon which we need not dwell much and that is Sunday programmes. I ventured in a previous Debate to give an opinion of my own, which I think is widely shared, that Sunday programmes should be brighter. I

think the House would agree and many people would agree that they are much brighter.

HON. MEMBERS: Not much.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with that interesting part of his speech may I ask him whether "minor staff" means "junior staff" and further whether members of the staff may join any legitimate trade union or whether it is to be an internal staff organisation?

Major TRYON: I shall have to inquire into that. I have only got this statement as agreed by the B.B.C. but the recommendation of the Ullswater Committee was accepted by the Corporation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that the appointments will be made in future by advertisement.

Major TRYON: Yes.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand also that it is to be on the recommendation of a Civil Service Commissioner. Does "minor staff" in that connection mean "junior staff?"

Major TRYON: I think I would rather refer to the B.B.C. to find out about that point. I was speaking about Sunday programmes. When we hear attacks on the B.B.C., and there are a great many of them from various quarters, those who take the middle course are liable to be shot at on both sides, but it does not follow that they are wrong. In the particular case of Sunday programmes the House may be amused to hear that on the one side the B.B.C. have been violently attacked for not giving a lot of light dance music on Sunday, while, on the other hand, there have been indignant protests from one part of the country against the B.B.C. for having dared to give an account of gardening methods on Sunday.

Mr. MESSER: Is not that because the gardening methods are wrong?

Mr. MAXTON: What part of the country was it?

Major TRYON: It was not from Scotland. I would say that this charter has been considered with great care by the Government as a whole, and I should like also to mention the great help which I have had from the staff of the Post


Office, one of the busiest Departments of the State, which has been engaged throughout the year with an enormous amount of work in connection with the B.B.C. I should like to thank the staff, and I should also like to say, in the presence of the Assistant Postmaster-General, that if I have been able to give a great deal of time to this work, it has been because of the help which I have received from him in the work of the Department. This House has in the past criticised the B.B.C., but I do not think there is a Member of the House who, if he were abroad and if he were discussing broadcasting systems, would not say that our system is a great deal better than the broadcasting system of any other country. Therefore, I think we owe a debt of credit and of respect to those who have built up this wonderful British institution which has given such splendid service and sustained on the whole very high ideals.
There are only three things which you can do in this matter. You can have a broadcasting system conducted on purely commercial lines, as is the case in some other countries, where political parties buy so much time on the radio, where people holding the most extraordinary views buy time in which to advocate them, where advertisements are put on the radio and where the broadcasting, generally, is not, I think, on the high level of the B.B.C. programmes in this country. Alternatively, you can have the radio used as it is in some countries—I will not mention them, but we can all think of some of them, though we should probably think of different ones—where the people have to listen to what the Government tell them. Here we have the third method, which is something between the two and which is, I think, the right method. I believe that it is the best system, and I think we ought all to acknowledge the fact.
I believe that one of the causes of any unpopularity which does exist is that people listening to the B.B.C. programmes hear all sorts of opinions which they have never heard before and which they do not like very much. I am sure that we all agree very happily here in this House, although we listen every day to opinions with which we do not agree. We have grown more accustomed than the general public to hearing the other

side of the case. I think a great many of these criticisms cancel each other out, just as they do in the case of music, a subject, I am told, which produces even less harmony among those discussing it than politics or any other subject. I have been, as I say, in a difficult position in that I have not been in charge of the B.B.C. Much might be said in greater detail, which would put the case for the B.B.C. more convincingly to the House, but I think hon. Members will agree that this issue of the Lambert case is small compared with the great issue which is involved. This charter renews the trust given to the Corporation to carry on this great service as well in the future as it has done in the past, and I hope that it will be agreed to, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested, without a Division in this House.

Sir P. HANNON: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend, before he concludes his speech, indicate to the House the circumstances under which in future any matter affecting the B.B.C. in relation to Parliament can be brought before this House?

9.5 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The whole House, I am sure, will regret that circumstances have necessitated that this Debate on the all important matter of the renewal of the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation should be limited to one evening's discussion. There are many aspects of the matter of broadcasting which are of very great importance and which in themselves might have occupied the House with great advantage for a very much longer time. It results from the curtailment of the time of discussion that we naturally have to concentrate our attention upon certain matters which are prominent in the public mind at the present time, or which are the subject of criticism, and that many of the more positive aspects of the broadcasting work have to be left for consideration on some other occasion. That, I think, is unfortunate.
I would like at once to associate myself with what fell from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Postmaster-General when he paid a tribute to the work of those who have established the broadcasting system in this country. There is no doubt of the wisdom of those who drew up the original constitution,


and if proof of that statement were necessary, I think it would be found in the fact that to-day, at the end of 10 years, there is no considerable body of opinion which would recommend that the Broadcasting Corporation should either be made a completely political institution with direct Government responsibilty on the one hand, or should be handed over to some form of greater liberty and private interest on the other. As for criticism, there is plenty, I think there will always be plenty, and I hope the Corporation will always welcome and always receive constructive criticism. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that criticism very often cancels itself out, that one critic cancels another out, and that is true in all the fields of criticism which have been directed against the Corporation. In regard to the musical programmes, one lover of serious music will complain that there is not enough Queen's Hall in the programme. On the other hand, a lover of light music will immediately reply with a request that there should be more Henry Hall. Precisely the same is true in regard to other forms of criticisms of a somewhat more weighty character directed against the Corporation.
I think a tribute must be paid to those men who, from very small beginnings, have built up this magnificent institution. They have built up a system of which this nation may well be proud, and they have done it, I think, by honestly trying to avoid all tendentious presentation of information, either political or economic. While that has been their object, I do not know that they have always succeeded, and they have been subjected, and no doubt will be subjected again, to criticism with regard to political broadcasts, which is one of the most difficult things with which they have to deal. It is vital in the working out of the new charter that they should continue to strive at, impartiality and to be free from all political bias, but with regard to criticism of political broadcasting and the presentation on the air of economic facts, there again the criticism seems to cancel itself out. There have been complaints both from the right and from the left, and I think that some of the criticism of the handling of broadcasting during the election of 1931 was perhaps never adequately answered, but these matters will always be the subject of

criticism until that day when political parties are agreed that they are getting everything which they deserve, and that, I think, is likely to be some time away. I would like to associate myself with the welcome which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave to the new appointments to the Board. It was one of the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee that the number of Governors should be raised to seven, and, if I remember their phrase aright, it was that there should be no undue homogeneity either of age or of social outlook. I agree with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that those who have the advantage of knowing both the new members personally are assured that they fulfil, so far as they go, the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee.
I would like to pass to another subject and to say that I find myself in agreement with the observations which were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) with regard to the question of staff and kindred matters. In particular, I think, that an effort ought to be made to introduce some greater measure of security of tenure in the service of the Broadcasting Corporation. It is, I believe, a mistake to imagine that it is possible to translate Civil Service conditions into the Broadcasting Corporation as things are to-day, and one must bear in mind that those who engage in Broadcasting work in its different aspects are not only employed by the Corporation, but that they have an indirect employer in the public of this country. There may be people—and it is well known that there are—to whom the public may not be willing to listen and whose services the public may not wish to enjoy, and one can easily see, without any very great effort of the imagination, the difficulty that arises. You have to give this matter very great consideration, I think, but an effort ought to be made —and I see no reason why it should not be made—to achieve greater security of tenure with regard to that matter.
I noticed with great interest what the Postmaster-General said about, and the reasons which he gave for, rejecting the recommendation of the Ullswater Committee that the technical and cultural sides of the Corporation's work should be separated. I could not help feeling, however, that during the course of his


own observations one of the reasons why it might have been an advantage to the Corporation and to Parliament if that recommendation had been accepted was brought to light, because several hon. Members rose to ask for information on one point and another, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was unable to satisfy them because of the fact that he must of necessity refer to the Corporation. I think it would be an advantage to the Corporation that there should be closer contact between them and Parliament. I do not think that anybody in this House or outside wishes to see any greater political control of the Broadcasting Corporation, but I think it would be possible—and after what the Corporation have already done almost anything might be said to be possible—to achieve some closer contact between the Corporation and Parliament. It is in the interests of the Corporation that there should be someone in this House who would be prepared to defend them against misrepresentation, and it is equally desirable that there should be somebody through whom Parliament should satisfy itself directly as to matters which it may feel of importance in connection with the administration of the Corporation. I have nothing to say with regard to the charter, and the changes in it necessitated by the experience which has been gained during the life of the expiring charter and also those necessitated by the change of business.
l should like to emphasise what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said about the desirability of strengthening our Empire broadcasting service. It is indeed a matter of very great importance when one remembers the very efficient and effective programmes which are pubblished in English and other languages in foreign countries. The German broadcast system has an admirable programme in which it is difficult to know where entertainment and information shade off into propaganda or political suggestion. The German broadcast beam follows the sun round the British Empire. It is obvious that the Corporation must develop to the full a service which is in no way inferior to that supplied by other countries. That is a matter of great importance, and I am glad that in the charter the conduct of this service is formally authorised.
I want to return for a moment to the question of staff associations and staff matters to which my right hon. Friend above the Gangway referred. I find it exceedingly difficult to form an accurate opinion with regard to the actual position within the Corporation itself. The right hon. Gentleman referred to an atmosphere of terrorism, and I think he used the word "dictatorship." I have heard the same thing. On the other hand, I have had contact with those who say they are unable to understand why these statements are made. I should like to refer to some special features of the criticism which has been made of the Broadcasting Corporation. The development of broadcasting has been so phenomenal and so rapid, and it has been made so easy, that we are accustomed to regard this magnificent service as one of the commonplaces of everyday life. We regard it in the same way as we regard the receipt of a letter, and criticisms are apt to have an undue effect upon our minds.
Every hon. Member is probably aware that there is circulating round Broadcasting House at all times an atmosphere of suspicion and a cloud of gossip, rumour and suggestion. I think it is time, now that we are renewing this charter for ten years, that this process was brought to an end. If it does not cease, it is bound to create within the Corporation itself, whatever may be the conditions in the Corporation, an unhappy state of things. If it goes on it will inevitably promote a desire on the part of Parliament to encroach on the day-to-day business of the Corporation. If it goes on unchecked it will tend in time to stop the flow of suitable recruits into the Broadcasting Corporation because they will feel that it is a place in which people cannot expect to get a fair deal. It is, therefore, proper that Parliament should take what action it can to see that this campaign of criticism and innuendo is brought to an end with the starting of the new charter.
I have from time to time made a note of some of the statements that have reached me of criticisms of the Broadcasting Corporation, and I would like to mention some of them to the House. I do not mention them because I believe them, and still less because I have any personal feeling with regard to anybody at the Corporation—the contrary is the case—but because these criticisms and


suggestions are the currency and coinage of the statements that are made. It may be false coin. If so, I hope we shall be told so that the lies and falsehoods may be nailed to the counter. It is stated, for example, that the employés in the B.B.C. have been discouraged from forming staff associations. It is suggested that they may do so if they wish, but that if they do form them they will lose all sorts of privileges. Joint representation and the like are common now to almost every firm and employing institution, and if it is not suitable in some appropriate form to the Corporation, it is the only institution in the British Isles where it cannot be applied. We welcome what has been done as the result of the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee in this direction. We welcome also the appointment of Mr. St. John Pym as Director of Staff. We feel that, as a result, something will be done in this direction, and I hope that it will be. It is definitely said that Mr. Pym has been side-tracked in the Broadcasting Corporation and has simply been set to investigate a large number of suitable forms of staff representations and associations and that the work will take him six months or more, during which time nothing is likely to be done.
It is further stated that the B.B.C's. system of engaging and dismissing employés is unfair. My right hon. Friend narrated his experience of telephoning to employés at the B.B.C., and said that he was asked not to do it. It is definitely stated that there is in Broadcasting House a check telephone system by which employés' conversations are noted and that their correspondence is opened. These matters are current in this stream of criticism. We are accustomed to hear suggestions with regard to the position of the Director-General. He is by no means immune from his share in these suggestions and criticisms. It is said that the Director-General belittles in the eyes of the staff the functions and position of the Governors of the Corporation. It is said that the staff have been bought out for reasons purely personal to the Director-General; that favouritism is shown in the matter of retiring pensions, salaries and the like; and that favouritism is shown by him among the clerical staff contrary to the standing instructions of the organisation. I have mentioned

these matters for the reasons I have given, in the hope that we shall have an authoritative statement so that this kind of thing may be brought to an end. It is important, at a time when the Corporation is launching itself with a new charter, that it should have a fair field and that this kind of thing, which is damaging to the morale of the institution, should be banished from the public mind.
With regard to the lamentable case of Lambert v. Levita, I accept the report, which I think is an attempt to deal out evenhanded justice. That is probably agreed. I would associate myself with what my right hon. Friend said about the case of Mr. Gladstone Murray. I hope that Members will follow the invitation of the Postmaster-General and read the case. It is an important and instructive document, and the deliberations of the House would be much facilitated, and they would be helped in coming to a right conclusion, if they could have a copy of the notes of the evidence and examinations which took place. There are lessons to be derived from it, and it may in the end prove a valuable experience. It seems to me that the case quoted, in which this important matter was apparently handled haphazard by the Vice-Chairman, the Chairman, the Director-General and Sir Stephen Tallents, indicates within the Corporation a lack of precision in the, division of functions between the executive and the governing body.
We are accustomed to hear criticisms of what is known as "The New Despotism." If there is an encroachment by the executive, it does not matter what kind of a concern it is, the remedy is not to take away the authority from the executive but to have a strong and capable board of management, or governors, with its functions well defined as between the executive and the governing body. I hope that one of the lessons drawn from this will be that these functions must be well defined and precise, and that we shall have always at the British Broadcasting Corporation a capable and responsible Board of Governors to whom the nation may look with confidence.
The only other important lesson of this matter is that this question of staff organisation, to use a historic phrase, "brooks no delay," and I hope that the Governors will set about dealing with it as soon as


they possibly can. I hope that the recommendations in the last part of the report will be acted upon, and that this unfortunate episode will be closed in the only way in which it can be closed satisfactorily. If I had been in the position of Mr. Lambert, and had gone through the sequence of events up to 6th March, I should have felt I was on trial, if not for my life, at all events for my livelihood, and that I should be excused for any lack of mental accuracy that I might have committed in consequence. The tribunal to whom we are indebted for this report have indicated what is the only satisfactory way out. I conclude by hoping, with all Members, that during the next ten years the wonderful progress which has been made during the period of the expiring charter may continue. Nobody knows what developments may take place with the coming of television, and I am glad for that reason that the new charter is for not longer than ten years, and I hope that the nation at the end of the next ten years will have as much cause for gratitude and satisfaction as it has now.

9.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER - CLAY: While I realise the desirability of security of tenure of the staff at the British Broadcasting Corporation, the position is not quite analogous to that of the Civil Service. I cannot help thinking that an influx of new blood periodically would not be a bad thing, and we do not wish that the Corporation should be hemmed in with rules and regulations, and that everything should be governed by the strict rules applicable to the Civil Service. We are entitled to have some answer from the Postmaster-General with regard to the allegations made by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). I thought I was listening to a gangster film plot when I heard of the intercepted telephones, opened letters and people followed in the streets. In these days that sort of tale told about a semi-public department requires some explanation. The right hon. Gentleman, in the authoritative position he holds on the Opposition Front Bench has no right to make these statements unless he has some proof that these things are true.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Persons I know did express apprehensions to me, and asked me not to telephone, and so forth.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have persecution mania on the brain. If he has made out his case, the Postmaster-General should answer it. It cannot be left as it is now.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has also given testimony. He has heard accusations of the same sort, and asked the Postmaster-General to make inquiries.

Major TRYON: We are waiting for the end of these charges and will give an answer. Some of the stories are completely unfounded.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: It is easy to throw stones and get a certain amount of cheap publicity, and these people cannot answer back. 1 do not know any member of the British Broadcasting Corporation staff, I have spoken to Sir John Reith, I think, twice in my life, and I have no personal interest in any of the employés of the Corporation. But I believe that there would not be an increasing number of subscribers to the Corporation unless they were listening to something they wanted to hear. People do not become subscribers to listen to foreign programmes; they are interested in what is provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I see here the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) who is chairman of the Listeners' League. Supposing he produced a programme which he thought inspired by heaven, it might still be considered an extremely boring programme by some people.

Sir P. HANNON: If the inspiration really came from heaven, would the hon. Gentleman call it boring?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: It is impossible to please everybody. I cannot myself imagine anything more awful than listening to a dance band, but I dare say somebody is dancing to the music and probably somebody is enjoying it. If it were not being enjoyed by somebody, I suppose it would not be given. I may say that I was very glad to see the demands that have been made by the leaders of dance bands. I hope they will insist on their demands, and I hope that the B.B.C. will remain quite firm.
There are, however, one or two serious points to which I want to allude. The


talks, I think, are admirable. Some people may think them dull, but they are very instructive. The suggestion I want to make in regard to them is that it is not only desirable to get a man who is master of his subject, but also a man who has a good voice over the air. I have listened to quite good talks which have been rather spoilt because the man has been indistinct. The result is that you lose attention and switch off. The debates also are admirable, and I think that controversial subjects should be encouraged. I get letters from my constituents, especially when anything about Russia is mentioned, saying that the B.B.C. is Socialist and is going Bolshevist. I have tried to reassure my constituents by telling them that it is better to hear both sides. No doubt hon. Members on the other side of the House get letters complaining that the B.B.C. is Tory, but as long as the balance is fairly held, I think that the more controversial matter we get on the wireless the better. I am so terrified that the people on the B.B.C. may try to play for safety and avoid controversial subjects because it may mean trouble. To leave out all matters of controversy would only mean that the programmes would be dull and colourless, and that would be perfectly disastrous. It is rather wonderful to know how little offence has been given by the B.B.C.
The B.B.C. touches on many aspects of life, and although one may often disagree with the speakers, I do not think they have given any real offence. I should like to pay testimony to the B.B.C. for the service rendered to people who are ill. I have been ill myself, and had to lie in bed for six weeks, and I do not know what I should have done without the wireless. I listened to talks of all kinds, to children's talks and to very instructive lessons to schools. I am sure that in that way they are doing very valuable work. Of course, as one becomes older one becomes more conscious of one's ignorance. One has only to look at a child's examination paper to realise how little one knows. Just think of what the wireless means to people living in a shepherd's cottage or a crofter's house in Scotland, or in other parts of the country away from town life. It brings them into contact with, and makes them feel part of, the civilisation we all enjoy.

Then there are the Empire Broadcasts. I am glad that the Corporation are going to spend more money on Empire Broadcasts. It is most important from the point of view of Empire that publicity should be given to our country and that news should be broadcast in an attractive form. I know that the hour at which the Broadcasts are given is inconvenient to many people, but I think that every effort ought to be made to secure the best possible talent for these Broadcasts. Let us do away with this pinpricking of the B.B.C., try to work with them to the best of our ability, and continue the charter already given.

9.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: I am very glad to hear that we are to have a full statement in reply to the points which have been raised concerning the staff of the B.B.C., because in previous Debates the Minister has rather dodged that issue. For instance, on 6th July the House heard from him the singularly anodyne statement that "the Governors have assured me of the general loyalty and contentment of the Staff." I think the report of the Lambert. case has blown that idea wide open. However, we could extract nothing more from him at that time. This is merely the autocrat of the B.B.C. brushing complaints aside. Again, the Minister said on 6th July that the "alleged interference with private lives was not borne out," but now we have the evidence in the Lambert case before us on that point. The relations between the staff and the director of the B.B.C. must, of course, involve the personality of the director, Sir John Reith, and in reading through the reports of the two previous Debates I notice that hon. Members, whose moderation of views and language is acknowledged, used such phrases as "unlimited dictatorial autocracy," "paternalism," "impatient of criticism," "has established a system of fear which kills initiative." In view of the reputation of the hon. Members from whose speeches I quote, I think it is fairly clear that Sir John Reith is both dictatorial and autocratic. In fact, I am not sure that to this we might not add the adjective "fanatical" while a charge of megalomania could, I think, also be sustained.


There has been a certain amount of criticism of the broadcast by the Archbishop of Canterbury last Sunday. I have been informed—I do not know if it is true —that Sir John Reith took part in that commination service. If so, I can only say that America has with very great relief seen the end of its turbulent radio priest. If in this country the duties of radio, priest and radio director are to be combined, I think we are in for a very remarkable future. If Sir John Reith is not what he has been stated to be by the hon. Members from whom I have quoted, it is very surprising to find the exact conditions prevailing at Broadcasting House which the qualities attributed to him would entail. They are symptoms I know very well. Some of them are not uncommon among captains and admirals in the Navy. I have been lucky myself, and have never had anything to complain of, but I have heard during my service of the admiral who thinks himself a pocket Napoleon, who will not allow anybody to do anything but himself, drives all intelligent people away, is surrounded by subservient officers, sows suspicion among the staff to divide them so that he may rule by fear, and is distrusted in consequence. All these conditions of service, we are told on authority, exist at Broadcasting House. I agree that the staff at Broadcasting House are probably not a very easy team to handle. No doubt they are temperamental, jealous and, shall I say, peculiar. Sometimes I have thought that a green carnation might be a very proper badge for them.
I listened to last night's broadcast. I must confess that I deserted this House while it was discussing the hand-to-mouth disease in the Highlands and went home and switched on my wireless. I heard a singularly dreary skit or parody of "Hamlet," but there was one thing in it which really was a "gem of purest ray serene." The lady, playing Ophelia, said:
Roses are red, violets are blue,
But the pansy in only of use to a few.
I thought perhaps she was announcing a motto for the Broadcasting House notepaper. If the staff are not an easy team, all the more reason for having a perfectly normal chief to handle them. Features of the administration have been spoken

of to-night and I need not go into them at great length. It is said that the staff have no security of tenure and that there is an arbitrary system of recruiting. We are told that in future recruiting is to be very largely by advertisement; I happen to know from experience that, although an advertisement may be inserted, it does not decide who is selected to fill the post. The advertisement may be only a matter of form.
A point dwelt upon to-night has been that there is no systematised arrangement about promotion, which is by fear or favour at the whim of the Director. That has, of course, increased his autocracy. The political disability endured by the staff has been far greater than that which is in force in the Civil Service, although the staff have not the corresponding advantages enjoyed in the Civil Service of greater security and definite promotion. About the allegations of spying and interference with private life, the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) seems to be living in a state of almost virginal innocence if he imagines that in public offices any system of listening-in on telephones and possible interference with correspondence is altogether unknown. If it is not the case, accusations of it have been most definitely made to-night; let us therefore have a clear and proper refutation of them by the Government speaker who is to reply.
One other point upon which I would lay stress is the question of salaries. At present there is no scale. Salaries are fixed by bargaining, and the staff are not allowed to discuss their salaries among themselves. That veto on the discussion of salaries means secrecy, distrust and suspicion, an atmosphere which is the very breath of a dictator's nostrils, and which is all part of the technique of "divide and rule." Where there is secrecy about salaries, there is almost certain to be something wrong in the system of administration. This House should insist upon the same publicity in regard to salaries at the British Broadcasting Corporation as is observed in the Civil Service. Above all, the system of increments should be properly regularised. The question of staff associations has been dwelt upon. The Ullswater Committee recommended them. Thereupon the British Broadcasting Corporation took a plebiscite according


to the very best Goebbels technique and, by an extraordinary coincidence, the verdict came out against staff associations. Without staff associations there is no healthy way of airing grievances, which fester until they become running sores. Why should the British Broadcasting Corporation object to a system which the Civil Service tolerates and the Post Office definitely encourages? The British Broadcasting Corporation is not a happy ship, and the public will never have confidence in it until they are convinced that the staff are properly treated. The public realise that no member of the staff was allowed to give evidence before the Ullswater Committee—

Major TRYON: That is quite untrue.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: That was the impression made upon my mind upon reading the previous debates last night.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I was a member of that committee, and I can assure the hon. Member that that was not so.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Then I withdraw my remark. I was under that impression. If the complaints are not remedied, we shall be wise in pressing for a commission of inquiry into the whole question of the relations between the staff and the Governors. The Lambert case throws a very vivid light on conditions at Broadcasting House. Major Murray and Sir Stephen Tallents failed to report to Sir John Reith the conversation that had taken place between Major Murray and Sir Cecil Levita. The incident shows a certain fear and a lack of confidence in Sir John Reith. If he was a good chief, possessing the full confidence of the staff, he would have been the first person to whom Mr. Lambert would have wished to go on hearing the facts of that conversation. It is very noticeable from the report that Sir John Reith did not apprehend the nature of Mr. Lambert's grievance, as late as 5th March. The vice-chairman approved the draft sent by Sir Stephen Tallents, which was handed to Mr. Lambert on 6th March, and apparently Sir John Reith did not see a document of this importance, which told Mr. Lambert, in so many

words, that he would be dismissed if he put his private interests before the interests of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
That memorandum, handed to a subordinate, was, in my opinion, a disgrace to the authorities at Broadcasting House. Following upon that, Mr. Lambert's increment was withheld, and a reason was given for withholding it. He was told that it was withheld because of his attitude to Sir Stephen Tallents, but that it was not in the nature of a punishment. Well, that is casuistry, and nothing else. It all shows that the British Broadcasting Corporation chiefs have no idea of how to treat a member of their staff. As regards these endless memoranda of which we read in the report, and the demands for apologies, I can only say that there ought to be an office memorandum at Broadcasting House forbidding the exchange of such personal memoranda between members of the staff. The clear fact which emerges is that a member of the staff had an admitted and substantial grievance, yet neither Sir John Reith, Mr. Norman, the chairman, Mr. Brown, the vice-chairman, nor Sir Stephen Tallents his immediate superior, sufficiently commanded either his respect or his confidence to be able to put the matter right. No wonder that Mr. Lambert maintains that he was being punished for disregarding their wishes that he should put his private interests second, and those of the British Broadcasting Corporation first. In view of that memorandum of 6th March and the withholding of the increment, how can the Board of Inquiry possibly support their statement that they reject entirely Mr. Lambert's theory of persecution? It is very satisfactory to note paragraph 42, which contains a severe censure of the B.B.C. governors and of the officials concerned, and we can only wait and see if resignations will follow upon that severe censure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I do not think it is an unusual thing that, after people have been severely censured, resignations should perhaps follow. But that memorandum of 6th March, advising a subordinate to put his private interests second to those of. the B.B.C., seems to me to reflect the touchiness of Sir John Reith about everything that has to do with the B.B.C. He seems to say,
If any man come to me and hate not his father and his mother, and wife and


children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot serve the B.B.C.
Sir Stephen Tallents characteristically says that the memorandum of 6th March was vague, and Mr. Norman says it was a mild form of warning. Mr. Lambert says what any sincere, straightforward man would say—that it threatened dismissal. Compare the attitude of the B.B.C. with that of the law. The law gave heavy damages to Mr. Lambert; the B.B.C. says that he ought to have forgone those damages in the interests of the B.B.C. I am not surprised that Mr. Lambert felt, as is stated in paragraph 46, that he was unable to attribute any but an ill motive to the actions of the B.B.C. and its officers in relation to himself. The B.B.C. ought to withdraw the memorandum of 6th March; and they not only ought to withdraw it as regards Mr. Lambert, but they ought to withdraw it as an expression of policy in regard to the staff.
The Board of Inquiry might very well express surprise at the haphazard method of handling the matter first by one chief and then by another, and Sir John Reith's explanation of that in paragraph 52 is quite unconvincing. The essential fact which comes out is that not one of the chiefs of the B.B.C. inspired confidence in a subordinate, and all of them preferred to shuffle the job of talking to that subordinate on to someone else, or to get a solicitor to write to him, instead of having those man-to-man interviews which would have cleared the matter up had confidence existed between the subordinate and his chiefs. It is typical of the autocrat that he refuses to give an audience to people suffering from a sense of grievance. The sum of it is this, that where dirty linen is concerned the official policy of the B.B.C. chiefs is to wear it in private instead of washing it in public. It is no wonder that the Board of Inquiry concluded their report by saying that a tradition And a technique require establishing. They certainly do.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. C. DAVIES: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.- Commander Fletcher) will realise on reflection that an over-statement of this case, however good that case may be, will not help him. I feel, however, that there is an air of unreality about this

Debate. Here we are, on a Motion for the Adjournment, debating the greatest charter which the Government are issuing in our time, and this is the only opportunity that we have for discussing the terms of it. It does not seem right that the House of Commons should part with a charter of this magnitude, affecting so many lives and affecting such an important matter as broadcasting, in a mere Debate on the Adjournment of the House. I could have hoped that this charter could only have been brought forward by a Bill, on which we could have discussed on the Floor of this House the exact terms contained in the charter. Then we should have had a much more effective Debate.
There is another matter of unreality, and that is that charges are being flung from one side to the other—charges made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), charges made by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton, charges made by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White)—and there is no one who is really in a position to answer those charges. There is no one responsible in this House for the British Broadcasting Corporation; there is no one in the ordinary position of a Minister answering for his own Department; there is no one here to stand up in defence of it except to answer the charges upon hearsay evidence which are brought. That is one of the reasons why I still regret that the Government have not seen fit to adopt the strong recommendation—the unanimous recommendation—of the Ullswater Committee, that the British Broadcasting Corporation should, for the future, have in this House a representative who would answer to Parliament for its conduct. The Postmaster-General, in one of those very charming speeches with which he always disarms criticism, and always gets his own way by being so charming about it, said, when he was dealing with this matter, "Well, of course, the suggestion is that you should have some senior statesman who will answer for the cultural side of the B.B.C." But that was not what was in our minds, nor was it what we recommended.
I will not trouble the House by reading the recommendation; hon. Members will find it in his Report; but


what we asked was that there should be a responsible Cabinet Minister capable of answering on the Floor of this House for the policy of the B.B.C. and for the conduct of the B.B.C. over such questions as are now being discussed on the Floor of this House with regard to the staff and other matters connected with the B.B.C. For some reason or other the Government have seen fit to disregard the advice that was unanimously given by that committee, and I cannot help feeling that it is a matter of deep regret that they have passed it over. May I, before I pass from the Charter, thank the Postmaster-General, or rather, thank the B.B.C.—because the only way in which I can do it is through the Postmaster-General—for what they have done in regard to my own country? They have followed the recommendation we made that there should be a Welsh-speaking staff and that there should be a separate Welsh division, and it is now being carried out. For that, I and the other Welsh Members, and, of course, all my Welsh-speaking friends, are duly grateful.
I come now to the matters which have been the main subject of this Debate. Of course, one can always hear rumours and tittle-tattle with regard to any of us, and, of course, the more prominent we are, the more the rumours and the more the tittle-tattle. The B.B.C., of course, is always, as someone has said, front-page news, and anything that can be said with regard to it will be promptly given prominence. I am not at all sure that that prominence is thoroughly disinterested—

Mr. MESSER: None of their stuff is disinterested.

Mr. DAVIES: One has heard these rumours coming up time and again. They came up while the Committee was sitting. There was not a tittle of real evidence for them, and I would much prefer to pay attention to real evidence and real proof than to any quantity of rumour. Charges have been made to-night. If they are true, of course something drastic ought to be done with regard to the Corporation. If messages are tapped, correspondence is opened and people are followed, that would be stopped in any private office, or in any Government office, and it ought to be stopped in the British

Broadcasting Corporation if it is true. But can it be true? Look at the way this great organisation has been built up. Could it have been built up on such a system as that? Charges have been brought against Sir John Reith. I hold no brief for him. I have only seen him once, and that was in the witness box, and I believe I was his most severe cross-examiner, but I cannot help feeling that he took upon his shoulders ten years ago a tremendous task with a very small staff to help him. He gradually built around him a great staff and brought about what we are told on the evidence of other countries is the finest broadcasting service in the world. You cannot build up such a structure as that if there is all the time distrust in the office. If people are all the time, instead of going about their business, quarrelling, getting together and whispering, it is impossible to carry on. Merely on the general principle I find it difficult to believe even the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley or the hon. Member for East Birkenhead.

Mr. WHITE: I was not making the statements myself.

Mr. DAVIES: I had forgotten. The hon. Member carefully said they were not his own statements but only statements that had been made to him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley said they were within his own knowledge.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I said friends of mine at the Corporation in very high positions had told me not to telephone. I went on to say that I did not know whether it was true or not. My argument was that it showed that there was something in the atmosphere of the place that was unhealthy.

Mr. DAVIES: I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I was drawing a distinction between him and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead. There is a distinction, because the right hon. Gentleman told us that he had had personal communication with members of the staff who had told him so.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: So did the hon. Member.

Mr. DAVIES: I did not understand him so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I thought there was a distinction between


them, but apparently there is not. However, it comes to the same thing. They are both making charges which, if true, would mean that this thing is rotten to the core and ought not to succeed. It has succeeded, and I find it very difficult to believe that those statements even though they are made by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member. This Corporation is beginning on its fresh lease of life for the next 10 years. I hope it will do something to free itself from any suspicion that any of these things are really going on. I hope the Government will assure the House that it will make the fullest inquiry it can and, if it finds that they are true, of course they must be stopped. If they find they are untrue, let us have an end of it and let this great Corporation continue the great work it has done under a man of the calibre of Sir John Reith.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: Apparently I am about the only Member in the House who is not alarmed or dismayed at the reports about intimidation and the reign of terrorism that is said to go on at Broadcasting House. I imagine that that is because, unfortunately, I look back long enough and recall that these conditions obtained in the Post Office before the very happy conditions and relationships that now exist owing to staff associations. If the Postmaster-General looks back for 30 years, he will see that these conditions obtained then, that people were actually followed to their homes and note.3 were taken of meetings that they attended. I remember one amusing occasion when a staff meeting was being held and someone had the inspiration to open a cupboard, and two officials were found inside taking notes in order to report to the General Post Office. There was another case which caused a good deal of controversy in the House 20 years ago, in which a postmaster dared to interfere in the case of a man who wanted to marry a particular girl because he did not think he ought to do it. One can only see what is likely to happen in a Department like this unless there is a certain amount of that fresh air of criticism and discussion and the right of approach.
I am not at all alarmed, nor am I surprised to find that this sort of thing goes on. It is an argument for staff associations, for trade union representation, and

for the right of representation and discussion, which had to be brought into force before we got the very happy conditions that now obtain the Post Office. Just as bitterly as the Broadcasting Corporation now fight any suggestion, so in times past former Postmasters-General used to fight suggestions in connection with the Post Office. Now they get up in the light of day and express their satisfaction that they have co-operation between the two sides and that it works for the good of the service. I hope the House will take note that in the Ullswater Committee's Report there was no halfhearted suggestion about this. They were very definite indeed as to the essential need that this should happen. They say in paragraph 37:
It has been represented to us that by informal means of consultation, together with the right of appeal to the Director-General or the Governors, the staff can make known their views, higher officers can keep in touch with them and any grievances can be redressed. We cannot accept this contention as necessarily disposing of the need for organised machinery. A similar right of appeal to the Postmaster-General exists in the Post Office, but has not precluded the need for staff representation. The large measure of freedom from direct Parliamentary control which is accorded to the British Broadcasting Corporation seems to us to increase this need. Such representation might take one of two forms, (a) the intervention of external trade unions, or (b) the constitution of one or-more internal associations.
That is emphasised in the recent report of the inquiry into the case of Lambert v. Levita. That is a very strong statement. I understand that the Postmaster-General is going to see it implemented. It will not do any good unless the Postmaster,-General exercises his authority and sees that the things that are suggested here are put into operation. Things would not have got to the head that they have reached if the Postmaster-General had been strong enough to put his foot down and had asserted hiauthority a little earlier with regard to other matters. The gentleman at the head of the Corporation is a formidable person and probably it would have been difficult, but it ought to have been done. One hopes that, in view of the statement which the Postmaster-General has made, these things will be done, that there will be no hesitation in the matter and that they will be implemented. I wish to say, again emphasising the need for security


of tenure as far as some of the administrative staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation are concerned, that nobody suggests for a moment that it should be those persons more or less directly concerned with putting over the ether the programmes and with the artistic side, but there is a case, surely, for the fixed administrative staff, who should have continuity of knowledge and procedure both as to their staff and the management of the organisation itself.
I would also emphasise the point that has been raised that every Governor should, as far as possible be free from any suspicion of partisanship in the political sphere. Therefore, it is necessary that, if a Member of this House accepts the position of Governor, he should no longer continue as a Member of this House. It is bound to be a matter for suspicion on certain occasions, when it would be hard to convince people that there was not some political partisanship. I do not say that it is not there now, but it certainly would be very much stronger if it were known that a Governor was an active supporter of a particular party and a, Member of this House. I hope that the position will be continued as hitherto, and that the Governors will be free, just as are the rest of the staff, from taking an active part in politics.
There is a point I would put on my own responsibility, and it arises out of the Board of Inquiry. When members of the staff, as was the case with regard to Mr. Lambert, are allowed to go on to other boards, they should not go in any other than a directly representative capacity. If a man goes on a board in the time of the Department, the Department should accept responsibility for him as their representative. Otherwise it would seem that they get the best of both worlds, and can repudiate him when it appears to them to be desirable and back him up when things are otherwise. I ask that that matter should be given consideration, and that we should not have anything like such circumstances in the future. The right hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) referred to the possibility of the British Broadcasting Corporation answering back with regard to some of the accusations that are made here. He -could not have listened to the Debate or

he would have heard my right hon. Friend give very strong evidence to the effect that they answered back with regard to the Ullswater Committee's Report so quickly that they got in before the report itself. It is things like that which cause Broadcasting House and the Corporation itself to be talked about as far as the administration is concerned. Having regard to all the circumstances, and to the fact that, in a new and unchartered territory, they have performed wonders when compared with other countries, there can be no doubt that the British Broadcasting Corporation is in front of any other system in the world, but, even so, that seems to have gone on in spite of the administration and the internal disharmony which appears to have prevailed at Broadcasting House. Therefore, I hope that, arising out of this discussion and the statements of the Postmaster-General, steps will be taken to see that it does not. continue.
It is not good enough for the Postmaster-General to say that nothing very serious has happened. If it is not very serious it is symptomatic that there is some disease or some trouble there. There is every indication that things need inquiring into and that a good deal of new machinery requires to be set up. When the Assistant Postmaster-General replies I hope he will be able to give us an assurance on this point, and that he will not accept the view that there has been exaggeration in the statements made as to administration, or conduct, or what has been described as a reign of terror at Broadcasting House. In the Department that he now serves so well and which functions so admirably, in its own past history and at not a very distant time, circumstances arose and continued until the light of greater publicity was admitted, until representations were made on behalf of the staff, until the accessibility of the staff to the highest authority was recognised, and adequate machinery was set up for the purpose. Until these things came about the conditions in the Post Office were quite as bad as those which are said to obtain at the British Broadcasting Corporation. Such conditions will disappear in the same way in B.B.C. administration as and when similar machinery is established there.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. De CHAIR: We are all very grateful to the Postmaster-General for focusing our attention on the real issue of the Debate, which is the continuance or the discontinuance of the charter under which the Broadcasting Corporation has operated for the last 10 years. The discussion at times seems to have been completely side-tracked on to a personal issue about the private life of members of the staff of the B.B.C. Such a cloud of misrepresentation has arisen around this subject that it is well that it should be cleared away before the main issue can be fully appreciated. There has been a lot of criticism recently about the private Eves of those concerned in the administration of the B.B.C., and I listened with astonishment to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) who attacked the principle that the Broadcasting Corporation should take into consideration the private affairs of the members of its staff. As I see it, their position is simply that they are not interested in the private affairs of a member of the staff unless those private affairs affect the efficiency of the member of the staff or bring disrepute on the reputation of the B.B.C. as an institution. It was very surprising, in this connection, to hear the hon. and gallant Member, who presumably a week ago was prepared to take into consideration the private affairs and the private life of the paramount servant of the State, now turn round and say that it should be no business of the B.B.C. to consider the private life of a member of its establishment.
The B.B.C. stands half-way between a private undertaking and a Civil Service Department, and therefore as it has a public responsibility I think it is only fair that so long as it delivers the goods and provides the public service, which it does, to the satisfaction of listeners, its Board of Governors should be allowed to conduct the affairs of the Corporation as they see fit. A great deal has been said about the dictatorial methods of the administration of the Broadcasting Corporation. In this connection it is interesting to notice the terms of reference for the Governors which appear in the charter. Under the ominous heading: "Disqualification of Governors" we find these words:

A Governor shall ipso facto cease to be a governor thereof

(a) if his governorship be terminated by Us in Council, or,
(b) if he holds any office or place of profit in which his interests may in the opinion of our Postmaster-General conflict with the interests of the Corporation, or
(c) if he becomes of unsound mind or bankrupt or compounds with his creditors, or
(d) if he sends in a written resignation of his governorship to our Postmaster-General, or
(e) if he shall absent himself from the meetings of the Corporation continuously for three months without the consent of the Corporation."


I am sure we shall all welcome the accession of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras, North (Sir Ian Fraser) to the Board, but he will have to watch his step if he is to avoid these bewildering alternatives. Hon. Members have welcomed the suggestion made in several speeches that there should be a representative of the B.B.C. in this House able to answer questions apart from the Postmaster-General, who has himself referred to the enormous responsibility this work adds to the already many burdens of his office. Now that we have a Governor of the Corporation in this House I should like to see him remain here and be able to answer questions on behalf of the B.B.C. I do not see anything in the terms of the charter as to the qualifications of a Governor which would disqualify an hon. Member holding such a position.
The main issue is not a question as to the extent to which the Governors of the B.B.C. shall interfere in the private lives of its members, but whether the B.B.C. shall supply efficient programmes to the listener at all times, especially a popular programme. I think it is the general opinion of the House that it fulfils these functions, and I am glad that under the new charter the Corporation is to receive a larger share of the 10s. licence. I have calculated that they receive now approximately 5s. 2d. after all taxes have been deducted, and that in the future they will receive about 6s. after all charges have been deducted. The Postmaster-General has said that this will mean an increase of about —400,000 in their revenue, and no doubt it will be useful to them. It is certainly very necessary for the B.B.C. to have considerable funds at their disposal, because


under the terms of the charter they are not allowed to use their funds for purposes other than those which the charter sets out, and with the arrival of television many expensive experiments must necessarily be carried out.
Most hon. Members saw the demonstration of the Baird and E.M.I. installations in Westminster Hall recently and no doubt felt that television was beginning where the cinema and the B.B.C. left off. With the popularising of television it is obvious that mass production of the necessary equipment must be made possible, and that can be done only by further experiments. Some time ago the Postmaster-General, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir P. Latham) said that up to October, 1936, £110,000 had been spent on television equipment, and most of it was in connection with the installation at Alexandra Palace and did not include the adaptation of the building. Nobody will consider that £110,000 is a large sum when the enormous possibilities of television are considered and also the importance of its future development. Therefore, I hope that part of the £400,000 annually which the B.B.C. receive in addition to that which they have hitherto received will be devoted to further research in television which will make it more receivable by everybody.
Finally, I would like to say, in emphasis of what has already been said about the Empire Broadcasting service, that at a time when we wish to strengthen all Empire links, that service, which sends programmes over our heads—for we cannot receive them in this country—to all parts of the Empire for 18 hours out of 24, is an admirable service about which probably insufficient is known in this country. Those are services which the Broadcasting Corporation are giving to the public. Those are the main issues which we are considering, and it is upon those issues, and not upon petty private affairs, that we have to decide whether or not the charter of the Corporation shall be renewed.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: My hon. Friends and myself take a different view from that taken by the other parties in the House

with regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation. We do not regard it as being a really successful organisation. It is neither good Socialism nor good business. It is neither the one nor the other, but falls between the two. I wish to make a few observations in support of that contention. In the first place, we have the report, which I have twice read very carefully. I believe that the state of affairs there revealed in connection with the employés of the Corporation is a very unsatisfactory one. I do not think that the relationship which exists between the Director-General, the Governors and the various members of the staff is at all satisfactory. The memorandum of Sir Stephen Tallents on 6th March, with the threats which it contained, is itself a condemnation of the whole Corporation. That is all that has come out into the light hitherto, but from all the talk that goes on with regard to the Corporation, it is plain that there are very many similar instances and that the employés of the Corporation are always in fear of victimisation.
There is another point I wish to make in connection with the Corporation. I want the House to realise the tremendous income which the Corporation has. They have an immense sum of hundreds of thousands of pounds to spend, and they get all that money without any trouble. I submit to the House that the results that we obtain in entertainment and instruction from the Corporation are quite inadequate when compared with the amount of money that is at the disposal of the Corporation.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Nonsense.

Mr. STEPHEN: The hon. and gallant Member may say "Nonsense," and he is entitled to his opinion, but I admit that when we take into account the tremendous income of the Corporation, the entertainment and instruction provided are pitiful in the extreme. The statement has been made again and again that the Broadcasting service of, this country is the finest in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is all right for hon. Members to say "Hear, hear," but I think if I went to the house of one of those hon. Members at a time when he was listening in, I would find him twirling the knob on the dial of the


instrument, trying to get a foreign station. In practically every house to which I go, I find the people trying to get foreign stations because of the dissatisfaction felt with the programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
When this matter was before the House previously, I raised the question of Sunday programmes and the Postmaster-General promised that there would be an improvement. I do not see any improvement. My experience is that the Sunday programmes are going from bad to worse. I was speaking to an hon. Member of the party opposite about this matter in the smoke-room and he said, "I do not bother much about the Sunday programmes because I always try to get Radio Luxemburg on a Sunday." That is the experience of many other people. I want hon. Members to realise that they are the trustees of millions of people outside who are entitled to much better Sunday programmes than they are getting at present. As regards the choice of programmes, generally there are only two programmes to choose from—the National and the Regional. All the stations that were opened for broadcasting have been co-ordinated until the choice is now between those two. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Scottish!"] The Scottish is co-ordinated in the system along with the others, fortunately or unfortunately, and so is the Welsh. The Postmaster-General may shake his head, and 1 know that occasionally special items may be broadcast from the Scottish station, but what is Broadcast from Scottish Regional is generally broadcast also from London Regional, and as a, rule there is only the choice between National and Regional, as hon. Members will find if they examine the programmes. There ought to be a far wider choice of programmes with all the stations that are available for Broadcasting.
With regard to the programmes themselves, the thing that is put across from the station as a variety programme is the most miserable effort at a variety programme that one could find anywhere. If what is put on week after week by the Corporation were put on in a music-hall, the people responsible for it would be sure to "get the bird." Unfortunately we have not yet got a means of "giving the bird" to the Corporation, except by hurriedly twirling the knob and getting

another station. The attempt that is being made to provide programmes in this country is a pitiful one, when we take into account the millions of pounds at the disposal of the Corporation. Ever so much of the money is wasted. Finally, I suggest that the price of the "Radio Times" ought to be 1d. It ought to be possible for the Corporation, in view of the number of people who take the "Radio Times" to supply it at 1d., and to include in it a certain number of foreign programmes. If this business were properly managed, if it were not an organisation run by a lot of superior people who are involved in mutual admiration, one of the other, if it were either a, real commercial concern on the one hand or a real Socialist concern on the other, we might get something worth while. My hon. Friends and myself are quite opposed to the renewal of the charter. We would wipe this miserable, rotten British Broadcasting Corporation out of existence and set up a real Socialist organisation in its place.

10.41 p.m.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): I am sure we can all agree that this Debate has been a most useful one. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) that we do not have too many opportunities for discussing B.B.C. matters, but I would remind him that we shall have more opportunities in the future, because it was stated in the White Paper issued by the Government when the Ullswater Committee report was presented to the House that their recommendation that the Estimates of the B.B.C. should be presented to this House separately from the Post Office Estimates was accepted by the Government, and that means that at any rate we ought to get a full day's Debate on broadcasting matters when we come to the Estimates.

Sir P. HANNON: On what occasion will it arise? Do I understand my hon. Friend to tell us that we are to have a day's Debate on the administration of the B.B.C. apart from the Post Office Vote?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: In the ordinary way it would come on a Supply day, and the Estimates will be presented separately from those of the Post Office, so the opportunity will be there, and I


am certain that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will avail themselves of it. This Debate, as I say, has been a very useful one, and in the main I think we can say it has been quite an amicable one. I might remark that the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) has evidently read the report of the committee with some bias, but at any rate most of those who have spoken have agreed that that committee has done its work well. Although some people may disagree with its findings, none the less no one can challenge the fact that those who composed the committee were men of integrity and impartiality and that they did indeed try to find out, in regard to this rather unfortunate incident, the real truth of the matter and, I think, presented it to us in that report.
I want now to deal particularly with matters that were raised by several hon. Members, and particularly by the right hon. Member for Keighley. He stated that he hoped the Corporation would act in the spirit of the charter, and that is what we all expect them to do. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) remarked that he hoped the Postmaster-General would insist upon certain things being done by the Corporation; I can assure him that my right hon. and gallant Friend and, I am certain, the Government as a whole are desirous that the recommendations that have been sanctioned by the Cabinet itself shall be carried out by the Corporation, and I think we can say with certainty that they will be dealt with in the spirit as well as in the letter.
I would like to mention the question of the alleged victimisation of the staff, because a good deal of the interest in this Debate has centred around that matter. Although it may appear that the Corporation have not acted as promptly in this matter as we should have liked, in view of the report of the Ullswater Committee, I want to tell the House exactly what has been done; and a good deal has been done. The truth is that no objection, official or indirect, is being brought to bear upon the employés in regard to the question of the setting up of staff associations. It has already been mentioned that Mr. Pym was appointed by the Corporation last April as Director of Staff

Administration. It is to this gentleman that the members of the Corporation look to try to organise staff associations on sound lines. He has been making full inquiries, and I think that hon. Members will agree that it is a wise thing to inquire thoroughly into all the different sections of this great business before deciding what form of staff organisation shall be agreed to. If a form of organisation were thrust upon the staff they would certainly object, and they would have every right to do so. Think of the diverse qualifications in the staff—there are engineers, entertainers, doorkeepers, journalists, and those on the business and administrative sides. Mr. Pym has been making inquiries among all these people as to what is done in other organisations, and as to what organisations exist in municipal and public undertakings and in industry generally. I think that very shortly we shall find that a step will be taken towards forming associations suitable to the people themselves.

Miss WILKINSON: Miss WILKINSON rose—

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to make my speech in my own way, although I do allow one lady to dictate to me sometimes. These proposals will be put before the staff, who will be able to consider them with complete liberty, and no one among the governing body or the highest officials has the least desire, so we are assured, to prevent the staff forming associations. As soon as they have made up their minds what form the associations shall take, they will be able to go ahead freely. A question has been raised about trade unions. Many of the members of the staff, who were referred to by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Postmaster-General as the minor members, that is, the wage earners, are members of trade unions now. It is not suggested that a trade union shall be set up for that section of the staff, and there has been no pressure brought to bear on them to join or not to join any trade union. It has been a free matter, and there has not been any friction on that score.
We come to the question of victimisation. I readily accept the statement made by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) that he was


only repeating gossip that he had heard. I accept also the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley that it has been brought to his notice that certain things have been happening at the B.B.C. that ought not to have happened. I have had my ear to the ground, and I have heard many of these rumours myself. I have, therefore, taken the trouble to find out from the B.B.C. people the real truth of many of the rumours. Some of the answers received refer to questions that have been put by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead. I will deal with one or two of them, and hon. Members will be able to see whether there is any truth in the rumours. The first question is whether it is true that employés of the B.B.C. have been prevented from forming staff associations. I have dealt with that, and have said that the answer is definitely "no." Is it true that Mr. Pym has been sidetracked? There is no truth in it. I have stated the activities of this gentleman, and I can assure my hon. Friend that he is pursuing the job set for him without interference from those in authority.
Is it true that the B.B.C. system of engaging and dismissing employés is unfair? That is a matter of opinion. The Ullswater Committee went into the question and approved of the system of engaging staff, by public advertisement where possible, and by an appointments board. My right hon. Friend gave details of what was to happen in future regarding the appointment of staff, and the question of having an official from the Civil Service Commission who would sit with the appointments board and advise and help them in the same way as in appointments made to the Civil Service. Then we come to a specific point: Is it true that a check telephone system is in operation for listening to conversations of members of the staff? My right hon. Friend said that members of the staff had told him not to telephone them because, I take it, someone would overhear. It would depend on who the "someone" was. I know someone who telephoned to someone else and said, "Do not say anything that is private, the operator might hear," and the voice of the operator came back, "Oh, no. I am not listening at all." Can it be that the person they are afraid of is the girl operating the switchboard

at the B.B.C.? I have been assured that the right hon. Gentleman's statement is without foundation. [Interruption.] I make the statement as I received it, and I shall certainly inquire further into it. I have heard this story before.
Another question was: Is it true that staff correspondence is opened? The custom in many large business houses is that letters addressed to members of the staff and marked "Personal" are put aside to be opened by the person to whom they are addressed. It is the custom in many large business houses also that letters not marked "Personal" are opened, because in most cases they refer to business matters. I am informed that the practice at the B.B.C. is not to interfere with any letters marked "Personal," and the bulk of the routine correspondence dealing with artists and so forth is addressed to the staff by name. It is obvious that a central system of sorting and registering the post cannot otherwise be operated, but I am assured that only letters which deal with the business of the Corporation are opened.
The question was also asked whether there is any favouritism in the matters of salary and compensation. I am assured that that is not so. The salary lists each year are passed by the Board in March. There does not seem to be much scope for favouritism, because the Board deals with this, and I do not remember anyone making a charge against the members of the Board of instituting a system of favouritism. The fact that salaries are checked by the Board is sufficient to show that there is no favouritism in that connection. That, I hope, is a fact because if there was anything like favouritism or anything like promotion being given for something other than merit, I personally would deprecate it very much and so I am sure would my right hon. Friend.
Those are the main points in the charges and those are the answers. We shall certainly keep a watchful eye on these matters, because even if there are only rumours we want to dissipate them as quickly as possible, arid we can do it if we get information from the right source. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) mentioned the fact that talks for children are very popular. I


can assure the House that they are, particularly the Broadcasts for schools. Investigation has proved that they are more popular with adults than with the children.
The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) congratulated the B.B.C. on setting up a separate regional station for South Wales. I think that is a step in the right direction. We were told in the early days that there was difficulty about getting a wavelength. That has been overcome. The first telegram of congratulation I received was from a town in the West of England: "Thank goodness we shall have English programmes instead of half English, half Welsh." We seem to have satisfied both sets of people and I am sure it will be agreed that that is an achievement. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). I realise that he has had long experience of the Post Office. He commented on the fact that the Post Office was much better now than in the old days. My right hon. Friend has been at the Post Office nearly two years and I have been there 12 months. What a wonderful improvement already. Quite seriously, I agree that we should not like to go back to the old days. I have had a good deal of experience of Whitley Councils and other attempts to bring about better understanding between workers and employers. The staff at the Post Office is loyal; it takes a great pride in the service, and there is complete understanding between those in control, both on the political and permanent side, and the staff representatives. That is the only way we can have peace in this great service. If we could only spread that spirit a little further, we should have peace everywhere.
I should like to say a word about programmes. I sympathise with those hon. Members who have mentioned programmes, because last January it was my misfortune to be in hospital. I could not read—I was not allowed to—I could not move my arms for four weeks, and all I had was a little wireless set to keep me going. The difficulty was that when the nurse turned on the wireless set, I had to listen to it after she had gone out whether I liked it or not, because I could not turn it off. I listened for four weeks

to the B.B.C. programmes and I well remember a wonderful debate between Professor Laski and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). The hon. Member won easily. I did not like it and if I had had a choice I should have turned it off. At the end of four weeks I asked myself what sort of programme I should arrange if I had to do it every day week after week. Would it be possible to formulate a programme that would satisfy everybody? It is not possible: I gave it up as a bad job. You cannot guarantee 100 per cent. satisfaction in programmes, but what you can do is to give the best possible programme. I believe that the British Broadcasting Corporation is giving a far better programme than any other broadcasting system in the world.

It being Eleven of the Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. May I submit that there is a Motion for the Adjournment before the House? A large number of my hon. Friends and myself wish to record our protest against the short time allowed for the discussion of this important matter, by dividing the House on the question of the withdrawal of that Motion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That Motion has not been withdrawn. At 11 o'clock, under the Standing Order, whatever Question is before the House lapses. I have merely asked that the Clerk should read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. MAXTON: Further to that point of Order. I was aware of the proposal of the hon. Member. It is now only one minute past 11 o'clock. The Assistant Postmaster-General has spoken, you, Sir, have spoken, and I have been on my feet. The Minister must have resumed his seat before 11 o'clock. I therefore ask whether it is not in order to have a Division on the Motion for the Adjournment, since the Debate must have been concluded before 11 o'clock?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have the advantage or disadvantage of sitting


straight in front of the clock, whereas the hon. Gentleman sits to one side and perhaps could not see it properly. The exact hour by the clock is the first stroke of the hour, and that had in fact already struck before I rose to my feet. The Assistant Postmaster-General was still on his feet.

Mr. MAXTON: A lot of Government business would be lost on the strength of that.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ORDER BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir J. Simon.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Prohibition of quasi-military organisations.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 7, leave out "organisation" and insert "employment."

11.3 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
May I explain that this and the consequential Amendments will cause Subsection (6) to read as follows:
Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting the employment of a reasonable number of persons as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at any public meeting held upon private premises, or the making of arrangements for that purpose or the instruction of the persons to be so employed in their lawful duties as such stewards, or their being furnished with badges or other distinguishing signs.
The change has been made in accordance with a promise indicated in the course of our Debate.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 4, line 11, agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Powers for the preservation of public order on the occasion, of processions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 15, leave out "any," and insert "public."

11.5 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. KELLY: May we be told the reason for the insertion of this word "public"?

Sir J. SIMON: This and the seven or eight following changes, which are purely consequential, are to make it clear that the processions referred to in Clause 3 are public processions. The point was raised in another place that there might be such things as private processions which were not on any public street or on any public premises. No one denied that, and, indeed, the phrase "public procession" was used in another Clause of the Bill. It is plainly right to do this, and it will make the whole Bill consistent one Clause with another.

Subsequent Lords Amendments page 5, line 23, agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Interpretation, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 4, at the end, insert:
'Public place' means any highway, public park or garden, any sea beach, and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not; and includes any open space to which, for the time being, the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise; 'Public procession' means a procession in a public place.

11.8 p.m

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
A definition of "public place" was asked for, and this definition is borrowed from the Statute Book. It was given in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.

Mr. TURTON: May I ask what happens in the case of a river? Supposing that there were a public procession down the Thames, and uniforms were worn, would it not be desirable that that should be included

Sir J. SIMON: I should have thought that the Thames in such circumstances might be regarded as a highway.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 22, leave out:
appointed to act as deputy for" and insert "authorised in accordance with directions given by a Secretary of State to exercise those powers on behalf of.

11.9 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment.

Mr. KELLY: It seems to be something more than a mere drafting Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON: May I just explain that it is drafting in the sense that it does not alter the meaning of the Bill at all? It appears, however, that in borough police forces there does not exist any person who can be called a deputy to the chief constable, and therefore it is necessary to use a form of words which will cover the person intended. That is the only reason for these words. Without them we should not have anyone whom we could appoint, in the case of a borough, as deputy.

Mr. KELLY: That may be, but it is news to me that, on the death of the chief constable or someone who may be in charge, there is no deputy left to take charge. That is somewhat of a surprise. What is happening is that not the local authority but the Home Secretary will come in to authorise some person to exercise that power on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police. Does this mean that the Home Secretary is going to take charge of the police force in a borough or a county in the event of the Chief Constable being removed for one purpose or another? Some of us are very doubtful about the Bill. I hope it does not mean that the Home Secretary is going to play a bigger part and be placed in control and be enabled to give this authorisation or engage in this prohibition.

11.12 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I can entirely reassure the hon. Member. There is a statutory requirement as regards a county police force. There is a provision in the existing law in the case of a county that a

superintendent of police shall be appointed by the Chief Constable to act as his deputy in case of need. There is no such provision in the case of a borough police force and, since we have drawn the Bill as one that provided in certain cases for a deputy acting for a Chief Constable, we unintentionally made a provision which had no meaning and it is necessary to put something in in the case of a borough. The Home Secretary is not going to pick the gentleman nor interfere with local administration at all but he will give directions as to the nomination of a deputy.

Orders of the Day — TRUNK ROADS BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

11.13 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
They are nearly all drafting Amendments. I will call attention to any that are not drafting.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer of trunk roads to Minister of Transport.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 9, leave out "such" and insert "a."

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next two are to make certain that an inquiry is held if the county council so desires.

CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 10, leave out Sub-section (6) and insert new Sub-sections:
("(6) No appeal shall lie under section one hundred and thirty-two of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, against any terms or conditions arranged by the Minister which he declares to be necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of


persons using the trunk road or of preventing interference with traffic on the road.
(7) Sub-section (3) of Section one of this Act shall have effect as if in paragraph (b) thereof for the words 'the part of the trunk road to he so superseded as aforesaid shall become a county road' there were substituted the words 'the Minister shall cease to be the highway authority for the part of the trunk road to be so superseded as aforesaid.'
(8) When in pursuance of Sub-section (3) of Section one of this Act as modified by the last foregoing Sub-section the Minister has ceased to be the highway authority for any part of a trunk road, the highway authority for the said part shall be such local authority as would have been responsible for the maintenance and management thereof, if the road had never become a trunk road and the provisions of any Act regarding the functions of local authorities in relation to the said part shall have effect accordingly.")

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Sub-section (6) is to restore a, certain right of appeal which we restore by the first Amendment on page 3 in the case of England. Sub-sections (7) and (8) are to ensure that when a trunk road in Scotland reverts to the former highway authority, the position shall be precisely the same as it would be under the 1929 Act. The whole provision of Sub-section (7) and (8) is to make more clear what this House desires.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must call attention to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 7, at the end, insert:
("(11) Nothing in subsection (1) of section seven of this Act shall be construed as transferring to the Minister any dwellings for road workmen provided or erected by a county council in pursuance of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section three of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1908.")

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is to ensure that the road workmen's dwellings remain with the county councils as the county councils themselves desire.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 33, line 22, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE. PART 1.—(Functions of local authorities exercisable in relation to trunk roads by the Minister exclusively and modifications of enactments relating thereto.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, in the second column, leave out lines 26 to 31.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This restores the right of appeal to quarter sessions in certain cases which are all local.

Lords Amendment: In page 37, in the second column, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert:
terms or conditions attached by the Minister to a consent given by him under the said Section twenty-five, being terms or conditions which, he declares to be necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of persons using the trunk road or of preventing interference with traffic on the road".

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This allows an appeal to quarter sessions against a complete refusal by the Minister to allow the placing of beams and pipes, etc., across the road but it allows the Minister to make provision for safety and traffic purposes.

Lords Amendment: In page 38, in the second column, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert:
any terms or conditions attached by the Minister to a licence granted by him under the said Section twenty-seven, being terms or conditions which he declares to be necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of persons using the trunk road or of preventing interference with traffic on the road".

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This relates to the same point as the previous Amendment, except that it refers to bridges.

Question put, and agreed to,

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 40, line 36, agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of the Restriction, of Ribbon Development Act, 1935.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 7, leave out paragraph 6.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This meets the criticism that the Minister should not amend existing Statutes without laying the Order before this House.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendment read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Captain A. Hudson.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

SCHEDULE.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 22, after "undertaking," insert "Section five."

11.15 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There is only one Amendment which was omitted from the printed Bill by oversight. Section five has been in before. It is a Section which shortens the period during which unopposed electricity orders may be brought into operation. It enables the Minister of Transport to confirm unopposed orders without requiring further notice. Since 1930 80 per cent. of the unopposed orders coming before the Minister have been dealt with under this Section.

WAYS AND MEANS [15th December].

Resolutions reported:

"1. BEEF AND VEAL NEW CUSTOMS DUTIES.

That—
(a)as from the sixteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, there shall be charged on the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of the classes and descriptions specified in the first column of the following Table, not being Empire products, duties of Customs at the rates specified in the second column of that Table:—

Class or Description of Goods.
Rate of Duty


(i) Beef and veal not preserved in any Airtight container (excluding offals and boned and boneless meat)



Chilled - - - -
the lb. ¾d.


Other kinds - - -
the lb. ⅔d.


(ii) Boned and boneless beef and veal and edible offals of beef and veal, not being beef, veal or offals preserved in any airtight container, and excluding sweetbreads
20 per cent. of the value of the goods.

Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in pursuance of this Resolution in respect of any sausages or pastes, and no duty shall be so chargeable on the importation of tongues before the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution and any other Resolution of this House;
(b)goods chargeable with duty in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution shall, for the purposes of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be deemed not to be goods chargeable with a duty of customs by or under an enactment other than that Act;
(c)it is expedient to make, in connection with the imposition of the duties aforesaid, provision with respect to goods in transit or transhipped, with respect to the re-importation of goods exported, and with respect to drawback of duties, and for enabling the Treasury to repeal or reduce duties having regard to commercial agreements;
(d) in this Resolution the expression 'Empire products' has the same meaning as in Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the Finance Act, 1919, as amended by any subsequent enactment.

"2. BEEF AND VEAL ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS DUTIES.

That—
(a) as from the sixteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six there shall be charged on the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of the classes and descriptions specified in


the first column of the following Table, not being Empire products, (in addition to any other duty of Customs for the time being chargeable thereon), duties of Customs at the rates specified in the second column of that Table:—

Class or Description of Goods.
Rate of Duty


(i) Beef and veal not preserved in any airtight container (including edible offals of beef and veal but excluding sweetbreads)



Tongues- - - 
20 per cent. of the value of the goods.


Other goods- - -
10 per cent. of the value of the goods.


(ii) Extracts and essences wholly or in part derived from beef or veal
10 per cent. of the value of the goods.

Provided that no duty shall be chargeable by virtue of this Resolution in respect. of any sausages or pastes, and no duty shall be so chargeable on the importation of tongues or jellied veal before the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution and any other Resolution of this House;
(b) goods chargeable with duty by virtue of this Resolution shall, for the purposes of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be deemed not to be goods chargeable with a duty of customs by or under an enactment other than that Act;
(c) where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that any goods are being imported with a view to the re-exportation thereof after transit through the United Kingdom, or by way of transhipment, the Commissioners may, subject to such conditions as they think fit to impose for securing the re-exportation of the goods, allow the goods to be imported free of any duty chargeable by virtue of this Resolution;
(d) Section six of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, shall not apply to goods (whether British or foreign) chargeable with a duty of customs by virtue of this Resolution, but where any goods of a class or description so chargeable are re-imported into the United Kingdom after exportation therefrom, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that any duty chargeable by virtue of this Resolution in respect of the goods was duly paid, and either—

(i) that no drawback of any such duty was allowed on exportation; or
(ii) that any such drawback so allowed has been repaid to the Exchequer;


then, if it is further shown as aforesaid that the goods have not been subjected to any process abroad, the goods shall be exempt from any such duty;
(e) it is expedient to make, in connection with the imposition of the duties aforesaid, provision with respect to drawback of duties, and for enabling the Treasury to repeal or reduce duties having regard to commercial agreements;
(f) In this Resolution the expression 'Empire products' has the same meaning as in Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the Finance Act, 1919, as amended by any subsequent enactment.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Elliot, Mr. W. S. Morrison, Dr. Burgin, Mr. Lloyd and Lieut.-Colonel Colville.

BEEF AND VEAL CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL,

"to provide for charging duties of Customs on beef and veal and on extracts and essences of beef and veal, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 19th January, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Kirkburton Shelley and Shepley Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 18th day of November and published, be approved with the following addition:

After Clause 19, insert,—
(As to compensation to employees of Kirkburton and Shelley Companies.)
The terms and conditions relating to compensation payable to gasworkers for loss of employment (on the amalgamation of gas undertakings) recommended by the National Joint Industrial Council for the Gas Industry shall apply as between the Company and the gasworkers employed by the Kirkburton and Shelley Companies.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Bognor Gas


and Electricity Company, which was presented on the 27th day of November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Company, which was presented on the 27th day of November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Taunton Gas Light and Coke Company, which was presented on the 30th day of November and published, be approved, with the following addition:—

After Clause 19 insert:
(As to compensation to employees of Milverton Company.)
The terms and conditions relating to compensation payable to gasworkers for loss of employment (on the amalgamation of gas undertakings) recommended by the National Joint Industrial Council for the Gas Industry shall apply as between the company and the gasworkers employed by the Milverton Company.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade

under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Bath Gas Company, which was presented on the 1st day of December and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Southampton Gas Light and Coke Company, which was presented on the 1st day of December and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

MEMBER SWORN.

Another Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,

"That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.